Tenants Made Their Protests Over Rents (30 September 1977)

I wonder how many people recall the Bletchley rent strike of 1948?  Though the strike was never comprehensive and very quickly flickered out, it created quite a stir at the time.

In those days, special extension of Bletchley was yet to come, but the town was getting on with its own housing programme and post-war council houses were already outnumbering those built before the war.  All told, there were 386 council tenants, of whom some 150 or 160 lived in pre-war houses.

The pre-war houses were scattered throughout the district.  The main concentration was in Western Road, where there were 52 of one sort and 20 of another, but there were also smaller developments at Abbey Road (Simpson), Simpson Road, Manor Road, North Street, Newton Road and two developments along the Buckingham Road.

To these had now been added traditional-type houses at Chestnut Crescent and Larch Grove and “Trusteel” houses at Whiteley Crescent and on the Westfield estate.

In September, tenants were shocked to learn of rent increases the council were to make as from the first rent-week in October to keep the housing account in something like balance.  The increases for pre-war houses were indeed striking, considered as percentages.

The 52 Western road houses, presently let at 8s 9d a week, were to rise to 13s 6d, the 20 other houses from 8s to 12s 6d; Newton Road 8s 8d to 13s 6d; North Street 9s 3d to 14s; and Manor Road 10s to 15s.  At the same time, “Trusteel” and other post-war three-beds were to rise from 15s a week to 18s 6d, and two-beds from 15s to 17s.

We may laugh at such rents today, but we must remember that the figures did not include rates or water charges and that a workman was still doing well if he earned £5 a week gross and that many earned less.

That weekend, a mass protest meeting of tenants was held at which a Bletchley Tenants’ Association was formed – subscription 1d a week.   The promoters were just a few tenants in the Water Eaton area, and the meeting itself elected a committee comprising a delegate or delegates from each estate.  Reporters were not admitted to the meeting, but the spokesmen estimated that 400 tenants and wives had attended.

In one particular, however, the promoters had innocently got off on the wrong foot.  They had invited as chief speaker a man from Oxford who was considered an authority in such matters and who had told the meeting he was a Communist.  This was widely talked about in the town next day.

The Press contacted the Oxford man by phone and his replies to our questions showed there was some substance in his claims to have had considerable experience in these matters.  He told us he thought there were other ways of meeting the deficit without raising rents.  He also said he had told both the promoters and the general meeting that he was a Communist, but that if he mentioned a word of politics, they could show him the door.

Well, he was “shown the door” at a general meeting which took place the next weekend.  Asking for an explanation, he was told that a letter dispensing with his services as honorary speaker had been sent two days before, following reports from estate delegates that their people did not want to have anything to do with Communism.

Meanwhile, a deputation of tenants met the council in open session and put their case.  I have no space to go into the various pros and cons.  Suffice it to say that one delegate said he foresaw “streets of magnificent houses peopled by threadbare, lean and hungry folk.”  To which a councillor replied:  “If it is agreed that people cannot pay these rents, then it is useless for us to go further with building schemes, because we cannot now build for less.”  The council told the delegates that the decision must stand.

Next day, a meeting of about 300 tenants and wives unanimously resolved not to pay the increases – then due in three days’ time.

Came rent day, and 200 of the 386 tenants agreed to pay; 167 did not pay; seven, including pensioners, said they could not pay; and 12 were “not available.”

On October 12, each defaulting tenant received notice that failing payment by the next rent day the council would take proceedings for the recovery of the arrears and for possession of the house.

Thereupon the association recommended tenants who could pay to do so immediately, but under protest.

So on the next rent day, only 14 did not pay and only four more said they were unable to pay.  Which was virtually the end of the affair.