View report page

25
and Town Planning Act places the necessity of doing the work
upon the sanitary authority while giving the owners opportunity
in various directions to place the cost upon the local
borough. In fact, it has been found a safer proceeding in this
borough, where it has been desired to carry out work by the
Council, to obtain a Magistrate's Order under the Public Health
(London) Act, 1891, and to work entirely under that Act.
The Public Health (London) Act, 1891, however, does not go
far enough, and certainly many of the conditions laid down
as desirable in the Manual cannot be enforced under that
Act."
The importance of the housing problem and the enormous
difficulty of finding a solution resulted in the formation of a number
of associations and organisations to improve matters in this respect,
but the problem remained as difficult and as embarrassing as before.
One of the most trying aspects of sanitary inspectors' work
was the type of owner who, having acquired property as an investment,
sought to carry out only the barest minimum of repairs in
order to maintain or increase his financial benefits, and even when
sanitary notices were served upon him just "botched up" the
houses so as to abate the immediate nuisances. In fact, the tenants
found it necessary to call in the sanitary inspector whenever defects
developed, and in this way much of the inspector's time was taken
up in dealing with constantly recurring nuisances and in attendance
at Court in order to secure their abatement.
In my Annual Report for 1928 I included a report which I
had made to the Public Health Committee with regard to the
difficulties experienced in inducing some of the owners of unsatisfactory
housing property to carry out proper repairs which I illustrated
by reference to a house which had been the subject of action
during the year. In this particular case the tenant complained of
the unsatisfactory state of the premises which were visited by the
inspector who found the roof to be leaking and other unsatisfactory
conditions, and as a result an Intimation Notice was served. The
owner carried out work which was obviously of an unsatisfactory
nature, for a few weeks later the tenant again complained of the
conditions and, following a further inspection, a Statutory Notice
was served and a Rent Restrictions Act certificate issued. Further
work was put in hand by the owner who asked for a certificate
that the work had been done satisfactorily. At this time, among
other insanitary conditions, the roof was still leaking. The certificate
was, of course, refused, and further work was carried out by the
owner to whom a Completion of Work Certificate was then granted.
The premises, however, had been repaired in such a fashion that a
month later it was necessary to take further steps and to call in the
District Surveyor regarding other defects. This delay and"