Rent Tribunals
Sm.—When Mr. Churchill appealed early in the war to all who could to leave the areas subjected to the Blitz, thousands of elderly occupier- owners went to remote areas, having let their houses at nominal rentals merely to keep them occupied. They now find they have no claim on their old homes, that the rent they accepted under duress is fixed as '• standard," and that they are too often responsible for rates, insurance and upkeep. I know of one such couple who let two army officers have their house, which had been divided into two self-contained flats before the War. The officers had it on their own terms, with three years' agreement and option to renew. Four years ago last September they went to the tribunal, and on the specious argument that, when the house had been let in 1940, the two flats had " merged " (although in fact they had not), they obtained judgement and costs. This has meant that since Sept., 1947, one of them has paid no rent at all (the owners being liable for rent and refusing to pay). The other has paid 12s. a week since May, 1951. Over £160 was spent on W.D. repairs and dilapidations, and the owners have had to spend another £60 recently in repairs to keep their house in good condition. The tenants have taken down a greenhouse scheduled for repair, and also a garden but against the owners' wishes, but apparently this does not constitute a "nuisance"! How is it that a section of the community, whose only crime
is that they have tried to provide for their old age, are being enforced to house others on terms which bear no relation to any economic law, and this without right of appeal ?—Yours faithfully, ERIC RICHARDSON.
5 Kingsley Terrace, Westward Ho! North Devon..
Previous page
