Landlord Ordered to Repair Cottage

Stanbridge Village c.1909 [Z1306/108/4]

Saturday 19th October 1918: A soldier’s wife is refusing to pay rent for the cottage in which she is living in Stanbridge until repairs are carried out. The cottage is one of a row belonging to Mr. George Olney, and its poor condition had already been brought to the Council’s attention two years ago. There are large holes in the bedroom floor, and she is concerned that her children could fall into them. The matter was again reported to the Council, whose Surveyor declared that action should be taken to ensure that the woman and her children could live in reasonable comfort. The landlord has been given two weeks to make repairs. If this is not done, the District surveyor will carry out the work and recover the cost from him

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer 22nd October 1918

Landlord Refuses to Rent House to War Widow

24 Cardiff Road, Luton, with two children at the gate, 1910 [Z1306/75/10/7]

Saturday 28th September 1918: A soldier’s widow has written to the Luton News describing the difficulty she has encountered in trying to find accommodation for herself and her two children. She signs herself “the insulted one”, and it is clear that her situation reflects disgracefully on landlords who refuse to rent property to the widows of those who have given their lives in the service of their country:

“I am the widow of a soldier who was killed in France little more than a year ago. Since his death I have put my furniture in store and have been living with my friends. But there is nothing like a home of your own, however kind one’s friends may be, and lately I have been trying to find a house so that I could have a place to myself once more. On Saturday last I heard of a house to let which would meet my need, so I called on one of the most reputed house agents in Luton and made application for it. Having stated my reason for calling, the agent asked, “Where does your husband work?” I relied that he did not work anywhere. He died in France. “Oh,” said the agent “That’s enough: I shouldn’t let my property to a soldiers’ widow!”  I produced my former rent book to prove my respectability, but he would not even look at it. He then asked, “Where do you work?”  I told him. He then said “If you can get your master to take the house, and he cares to sublet it to you, he can do so, but I shouldn’t care to let it to you!”  I leave it to your readers to judge the quality of the person who can talk like this while he pursues his business and enjoys the comforts of his home unmolested only because brave men have sacrificed their lives and the comfort of their dependents. But what I want to know is this: Am I and my two children, and every other woman and her children, to be debarred from having a home of their own simply because our husbands have fallen in the country’s cause? If so, our husband’s death is our disgrace, and instead of dying to make a bad world better they have made it worse for those they loved most. I do not deny the right of any landlord to let his property to whom he will, neither do I object to him trying to secure himself in his rent; but when the sole ground of his refusal is that one is a solder’s widow, it is surely time to protest, not only for oneself, but for the thousands of others who hear a like reproach.”

Source: Luton News, 26th September 1918

Tenancy Dispute over Cottage for Wounded Soldier

Woburn Road, Heath and Reach, 1906 [Z1306/57/5]

Monday 26th August 1918: Mr. John Loke, of Heath Road, has applied for possession of a cottage at Heath which is currently occupied by Thomas Thompson. Mr. Loke wanted the cottage for Joseph Hack, a discharged soldier who had worked for him for ten years before he was mobilised with the Territorials in August 1914. Hack had been badly wounded at Gallipoli, losing a foot, part of his right hand, and part of his jaw and ear. He had been discharged, and was now again working for Mr. Loke. This was the second application for possession made in respect of this tenancy. The first had failed when it was found that Mr. Loke’s agent had received rent from Thomas Thompson after expiry of the notice to quit. A second notice to quit had been served, and again an attempt had been made to get Mr. Loke to accept the rent, which was in arrears. Two rent books was produced as evidence: one by the defending solicitor showing that it was a Saturday tenancy; the second by the prosecuting solicitor for a Monday tenancy, as stated in the application. The Bench examined both books, concluding that it was indeed a Saturday tenancy and the application was therefore invalid.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 27th August 1918

Soldier's Wife to be Evicted

Vandyke Road, Leighton Buzzard 1914 [Z1306/72/13/1]

Thursday 11th April 1918: An application for the eviction of soldier’s wife has been heard at Leighton Buzzard Police Court this week. The court was told that Samuel Chibnall bought two houses in Vandyke Road in 1917, a four-roomed house for his own use and an eight-roomed one. As he was unable to find tenants for the large house he moved into it and let the smaller one. He recently decided to sell the larger house for financial reasons, and now wants to live in the small property. He had therefore served notice to quit on the tenant, Mrs. Laura Breden. He had let the house to her on the understanding that it was likely to be sold, and before he decided to sell the larger property he had heard that she intended to move to be nearer to her mother. He knew that Mrs. Breden’s husband was fighting in France, and that she had two young children, so had given her a fortnight’s notice even though she was only a weekly tenant, paying four shillings a week. He had also offered to sell the house to her and her husband, but they were not able to buy it.

Mrs. Breden said she did not know the house was for sale until she had lived there for some time. If she had known, she would not have taken the tenancy. There was a shortage of houses in Leighton Buzzard due to the large number of men coming to the town to work at Morgan’s, and it was impossible to get another house. Her solicitor asked the court to dismiss the notice to quit – under the Courts Emergency Powers Act the court had absolute discretion to do so. Mr. Chibnall had sold his house over his own head and now wished to turn out of her cottage the wife of a man who was serving in France. The magistrates however made an order that Mrs. Breden should give up possession of the house in two calendar months.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 16th April 1918

Overcrowding at Leagrave

Leagrave High Street,1914 [Z1306/75/12/3]

Monday 18th March 1918: At today’s meeting of the Luton Rural District Council the Medical Officer reported that during the past month there had been 13 deaths and 17 births in the district. There had been three cases of diphtheria at Kensworth and one case of enteric fever at Limbury. The measles epidemic in Limbury and Caddington was subsiding, but tuberculosis was still increasing, with two more cases. The increase in the number of workers in the Luton area combined with inadequate housing accommodation has led to serious overcrowding and it was feared that the current situation was likely to increase disease; one medical man suggested that half the girl workers would be “crocks” by the time the war ends.

The District Surveyor reported on a case of overcrowding at Leagrave, where three men, nine, women and two children were living in a house with only three bedrooms and a boxroom, which had previously housed a family of four. Nearly all were employed in local works, with some working at night and sleeping in the daytime, allowing double occupation of their beds. After some hesitation due to the lack of alternative accommodation it was eventually decided that the Council would serve a notice on the landlord to end the overcrowding.

Source: Luton News, 21st March 1918

Leighton Buzzard Property Market

Heath Road, c.1915 [Z1306/72/7/2]

Tuesday 4th September 1917: Despite war time conditions the local property market in Leighton Buzzard continues to improve, with Messrs. Cumberland and Hopkins carrying out successful auctions of properties in Leighton Buzzard and Heath and Reach. A pair of modern, seven-roomed villas in Heath Road, known as Fair View and West View, both currently let at annual rents of £39 p.a., were sold for £335 each. The houses are bay fronted, with ornamental flower gardens in front and large gardens at the rear.

A freehold, double-fronted house at 59 North Street, with yard, stabling, coachhouse and outbuildings was put up for sale by the Aylesbury Brewery Company and was bought by Messrs. W. J. and G. Baker for £290. This property was formerly the Buffalo Public House and was used as an inn or beerhouse for at least two hundred years before it closed in 1913 and became a private house,  In Heath and Reach a double fronted six-roomed freehold cottage on Shenley Hill Road, currently leased at £10.8s p.a. was sold for £205.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 4th September 1917

The First Women’s “Police” Patrols

Margaret Damer Dawson and Mary Allen, founders of Women's Police Service 

[Imperial War Museum Q108495, under IWM Non-Commercial Licence]

Wednesday 5th April 1916: At the annual meeting of the Bedfordshire Branch of the National Union of Women Workers held at Bedford yesterday a speech was given by the national president of the Union, Mrs Creighton. She told the meeting that what she had heard from Bedford had originated the “grand work” of women patrols. The Bedford ladies had noticed a need before anyone else had thought of it, and had started a voluntary scheme which had indicated there was a need for something on a much larger scale. There were now 2000 women’s patrols at work all over the country, safeguarding girls and supporting special clubs for girls and soldiers, with the sanction of both civil and military authorities [1].

Mrs Creighton also pointed out the importance of caring for the thousands of girls now working in the munitions factories, and making sure that their health and character did not suffer. Mrs Trustram Eve had visited the Luton to enquire into the housing situation of munitions workers. , She had found that the girls working in the factories were well provided for. The works all held lists of suitable lodgings; the rooms used for the girls were “clean and respectable”; and the landladies were asked to “mother” the girls as far as possible. In her opinion a matter of greater concern was the long hours the girls were expected to work.

Source: Bedfordshire Times, 7th April 1916; Luton News, 6th April 1916

---

[1] These women’s patrols worked alongside the privately founded Women’s Police Service. In 1918 the women’s patrols were disbanded and the first women were appointed as police officers.

The War Rents Act Takes Effect

Saturday 5th February 1916: Difficulties have arisen over the interpretation of the War Rents Act which introduced rent controls for the first time on 23rd December, hoping to prevent tenants being subjected to high rent increases. War conditions have meant an end to house building and the demand for houses has outstripped supply. Outside of London the Act applies to all houses for which the weekly rent is under ten shillings.  Landlords may not raise the rent from the level in force on 3rd August 1914 unless they first give four weeks' notice explaining the grounds for the increase. Increases must be justified by changes such as structural alterations or an increase in rates, and full particulars must be provided; the amount by which the rent can be increased is limited to the amount which can be proved in this way.

There has been some confusion about the changes and a number of instances where increased rents have been imposed by landlords inappropriately. Any increased rents which have been enforced since 23rd November without waiting for the end of the notice period must either be returned to the tenant or the tenant may deduct the amount from future rent payments. Any coercion of tenants by landlords, for example by bringing forward increases in the rent book as arrears, is illegal.

In Leighton Buzzard a number of landlords had been campaigning for an all round increase in rents. Many landlords refused to join them, and in other cases tenants successfully resisted their landlords' attempts to impose increases, but others have already been paying higher amounts. A  committee has been now been formed to review the figures on any notices served on tenants in the town and ensure that they are in accordance with the act.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 8th February 1916

---

[1] The Increase of Rent and Mortgage (War Restrictions) Act 1915 also restricted the rights of landlords to evict tenants.

Soldier's Family Evicted at Woburn

Leighton Street, Woburn 1908 [Z1086/10]

Monday 3rd January 1916: In an unusual case the Duke of Bedford has instructed both the prosecution and the defence solicitors when applying at the Police Court for the eviction of one of his tenants. Before the war the Duke would clearly have been in a position to evict the man and his family, but the Court now has discretion in cases where it appears that a tenant was unable to vacate a property through circumstances directly related to the war. In the light of this the Duke wished to secure a fair, legal decision in a difficult situation.

A cottage at 70, Leighton Street, Woburn was let to Mr. George Tansley in 1906 at two shillings and sixpence a week. The tenancy was tied to his employment with the local blacksmith, Mr. W.H. Marshall, and it is essential for the blacksmith’s business that his employee should live opposite the smithy. Last September Mr Tansley left to join the Army Service Corps, resulting in the closure of the smithy until a replacement for him was found in October. However, despite being given notice to quit Mrs. Tansley and the couple’s two daughters remained in the cottage. The new employee, a Mr. Manning, had initially gone home to Olney at weekends, but was now living with his family in a small cottage at Birchmoor Green which was not suitable for his needs, being almost a mile from his work. He had already threatened to leave as he was unable to get home for breakfast and struggled to get home for dinner.

Mrs. Tansley is not from Woburn, and the Duke has admitted it would be impossible for her to get another cottage in the village. The Duke's estate agent stated that he had explained the situation to Mrs. Tansley and had offered her reasonable expenses to move to any part of the country of her choice, and any legal assistance she required to defend the eviction case. While the Duke did not wish any harm to the family of a man who was serving his country, the smith's business was essential for agriculture and could not be carried out properly without the cottage. He therefore wished the magistrates to make a legal decision on the matter. After giving the matter consideration the magistrates exercised their discretion and decided that the eviction should be carried out; Mrs. Tansley was given 28 days to leave.

Source: Leighton Buzzard Observer, 8th January 1916.