Examination of Witnesses (Questions 455-459)
22 FEBRUARY 2005
MR TIM
WINTER, MR
JON ROUSE
AND MR
DAVID SALUSBURY
Q455 Chairman: Good afternoon. Thank
you very much indeed for coming this afternoon. I think some of
you, at least, were able to sit in on the first session, so you
know the way we are working. Could I start by asking you to introduce
yourselves for the record, please?
Mr Winter: I am Tim Winter, I
am the National Organiser for the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance
Group, a membership organisation of social landlords in England
and Wales, with about 250 members, both local authority landlords
and registered social landlord housing associations.
Mr Salusbury: I am David Salusbury.
I am Chairman of the National Landlords' Association, which, as
its name suggests, is a national body for private landlords of
residential property. We have a nationwide membership.
Mr Rouse: I am Jon Rouse, Chief
Executive of the Housing Corporation, Government NPDB, and responsible
for regulating registered social landlords and, also, funding
new houses.
Q456 David Winnick: Mr Winter, perhaps,
more appropriately, but the other two giving evidence may wish
to intervene: how far would you say the problem of anti-social
behaviour is a particular nuisance?
Mr Winter: It is a substantial
nuisance and because the costs to social landlords are substantial
the business case for tackling it not tolerating it is substantial.
Our customers, if you like, the tenants, certainly see it as a
very high priority. In earlier questioning you asked about the
conditions that people had to live under, whether or not somebody
can get a night's sleep—those sorts of issues are substantial
and important for all social landlords.
Q457 David Winnick: What sort of nuisance
are we talking about? Some argue (I would not imagine it would
be MPs) that the nuisance is very limited, that it is sometimes
exaggerated by elderly people and, though it is unfortunate, at
the end of the day, it does not really amount to all that much.
What would be your response to that?
Mr Winter: Nuisance is many things
to many people. Nuisance at various levels—
Q458 David Winnick: Give me some illustration.
Mr Winter: I will give you an
example: the occasion of a paid-for party on the seventh floor
of a tower block, which was an early experience of mine some years
ago, where the tower block was totally disrupted for the weekend,
where the individuals who were running the party took over the
running of that block of flats and charged for people to use the
lift. My experience as a housing officer at the time was that
on the Monday morning I had 20 people complaining, including the
woman at the bottom, who stays in my mind considerably, who was
80 years old and absolutely terrified. What was going to happen?
What were we going to do about it? We had few tools at that time
to deal with it; now we have many more. My real horror was when
my caretaker brought into me the next Thursday a flyer saying
this exercise was to be repeated, what could I do to stop it—pre-empt
it? Again, at that time, I had no tools that I could use. Social
landlords do have those tools now.
Q459 David Winnick: How far are anti-social
orders of any relevance in dealing on the ground with this matter?
Mr Winter: They can be very useful
but I share the view that has been expressed many times of a tiered
approach: that is, starting perhaps with talking solutions, warnings,
and using Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, which prove very beneficial
(which came from social landlords, interestingly enough). You
have heard evidence from Paul Dunn, I think, at an earlier stage,
that they were not promoted by any Government agency for the first
three or four years of their use; it was word-of-mouth—they
worked. So that the experience was shared. Then the legislative
powers that we now have, the injunctive powers, if you like. The
use of injunctions is very important, but Anti-social Behaviour
Orders, I think, should be seen in that sense as injunctions;
they are asking people to amend their behaviour at the first stage—just
a requirement to do what most people already do. In that sense
they are not onerous. Then on, and we have got new tools now,
such as demotions, and we have got perhaps to the last resort,
which was traditionally the only means that social landlords could
address anti-social behaviour with, by taking possession action.
That is now very much a last resort and is seen as such.
|
