View report page

101
SANITARY “ REPAIRS.” “BOTCHING.”
To the Chairman and Members
of the Public Health Committee.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In accordance with the instructions of the Committee, and arising out of the
Summonses recently heard against Messrs. Benabo, I have prepared the following
statement with regard to the difficulties experienced in inducing some of the
owners of unsatisfactory housing property to carry out proper repairs.
These difficulties can, perhaps, be best illustrated by reference to a recent case.
The tenant of 103, Sandringham Road, on the 19th March, 1928, made a verbal
complaint at this department, with regard to the unsatisfactory state of these
premises, which was duly entered in the Complaint Book. An Inspector visited
the same day and served a notice on the following day. The roof was found to
be leaky, and there were other unsanitary conditions present. The owner carried
out work obviously of an unsatisfactory nature, as the tenant on May 1st complained
to the County Council, in a long letter which stated that in spite of the
fact that she had paid all increases on the rent, and all rates and taxes, and owed
no rent, the builder who had been doing some repairs had been withdrawn a fortnight
before the date of the letter; this letter was referred to me, and a Statutory
Notice was ordered by the Public Health Committee on the 10th May to enforce
further repairs. The Committee at the same meeting also ordered the service of
a Rent Restriction Certificate.
Further work was put in hand by the owner, and on the 26th August the
owner asked for a certificate stating that the work had been done satisfactorily.
The work, however, had not been satisfactorily performed, and the district inspector
would not recommend the granting of a certificate at this time, also
ex-Councillor Hammer called at the Public Health Department on the 3rd September
and made a statement, which was taken down by the clerk, with regard to
the manner in which the builder had repaired these premises.
Amongst other insanitary conditions, the roof was actually leaking, but this
did not deter the owner from demanding a certificate that the premises had been
put into a satisfactory state of repair.
Further work was carried out by the owner, and the Completion of Work
Certificate was granted to the owner on the 10th September. The premises,
however, had been repaired in such a fashion that in October it was necessary to
take further steps and call in the District Surveyor as regards the dangerous
condition of the basement ceiling and front entrance steps, and the work was
supervised by the District Surveyor. Ex-Councillor Hammer also called and
interviewed me with regard to the condition of the premises. In November the
tenant complained again about dampness and other defects, but in spite of the
obvious necessity for further work, I received a letter dated 23rd November from
the Property Owners' Association stating that all necessary sanitary work had
been completed at these premises, and that a certificate to this effect should be
granted the owner. I replied to this on the 26th November, stating that this
letter was incorrect, and that the workmen, as a matter of fact, were still on the
premises on the 24th November, the day following the letter from the Property
Owners' Association, and that the workmen had been withdrawn while the roof
was still leaky. I informed the Property Owners' Association in this letter that
I had visited these premises and had satisfied myself that the Inspector's reports