Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460-479)
22 FEBRUARY 2005
MR TIM
WINTER, MR
JON ROUSE
AND MR
DAVID SALUSBURY
Q460 David Winnick: The argument is that
those who persist in anti-social behaviour, are a nuisance and
cause mayhem in certain areas are not deterred by these orders;
indeed, so the argument runs, it is almost a sort of badge of
honour amongst some of the worst hooligans. What would you say
to that?
Mr Winter: Some may not. It is
very few. The Youth Justice Board's own figures show that 60%
of Anti-social Behaviour Orders have been effective. I think that
is interesting. As I say, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts were
not promoted, it was just word-of-mouth, and that is simply because
they were working, and it was very much the experience that this
was the first time that young people were being asked to address
their behaviour. They are asked to an interview with, perhaps,
a housing officer and perhaps somebody from the police, you engage
their parents in their behaviour, and they come up with an agreement
of: "We shall not do this"—and it can be as little
as "spitting on my neighbour's car", which over time
can become an extreme irritant. It is introducing that level of
respect for others at a very early stage, which may address the
behaviour.
Q461 David Winnick: Obviously, Mr Winter,
you are involved in some ways indirectly with local authorities.
Do you feel that local authorities and relevant social agencies
are, in the main, tackling the problems of anti-social behaviour
and using these orders as they should be used?
Mr Winter: The Social Landlords
Crime and Nuisance Group has been in existence over the last ten
years and during that time the agenda has fundamentally changed
from tolerating anti-social behaviour to tackling it. Most agencies
have come fully on board with that agenda. I think it true to
say that through Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships multi-agency
working is improving but there are clearly empty seats at many
of those meetings. I think my members would say that those empty
seats are most often from social services or, perhaps, the health
teams or mental health teams.
Q462 David Winnick: We do get complaints—and
I am sure I am only one of a large number of Parliamentarians—from
constituents who say they have complained to the police, they
have complained to the local authority, they see the councillor
but nothing happens; the nuisance continues. Do you feel that
in some respects there is some credibility in those complaints
that in certain areas, at least, the complaints are not being
taken seriously enough?
Mr Winter: Most certainly.
Q463 David Winnick: Why?
Mr Winter: Because it is hard
work and because it is committed work that needs to be done by
people who are both knowledgeable and confident in what they are
doing.
Q464 David Winnick: Does your organisation
encourage the police and local authorities to co-ordinate their
activity in dealing with nuisance?
Mr Winter: Certainly, and to use
the powers available to us as social landlords to intervene as
speedily as is appropriate. One of the problems with multi-agency
working is that it means it is slow. Your constituent coming to
your surgery—or my mum, as I characterise it—who has
not had a night's sleep for six weeks, does not want a lot of
consultation; she wants some action taken to address the behaviour
that is causing her to lose sleep at night. Through the new injunctive
powers, particularly, we are now able to do so. There are instances
of complaints being received and action being taken the same day
and an injunction being obtained on that day.
Q465 David Winnick: In order that the
private sector should not feel excluded or penalised in any way,
is there anything that Mr Winter has said, Mr Salusbury, that
you disagree with?
Mr Salusbury: No.
Q466 David Winnick: Is there anything
you want to add to those questions about, generally, the way in
which anti-social behaviour operates or is being dealt with or
not being dealt with, as the case may be?
Mr Salusbury: Only to say that
we believe that private landlords do have a role in this, albeit
a limited role, and that they should co-operate with the relevant
authorities in their attempts to tackle this form of unacceptable
behaviour. Indeed, in preparing for this session I spoke with
one of my members in Stoke-in-Trent, who told me that locally
they are now encouraging landlords to include in the tenancy agreements
a clause to the effect that instances of anti-social behaviour,
however they may be defined, are liable to be reported to the
relevant statutory authority, be it the police, the local authority
etc. However, more than that, the private landlord is in some
difficulty, frequently acting alone, in making representations
to an individual who is, perhaps, suspected of such behaviour;
there is a fine line to be drawn between making representations
and being accused of harassment. That is at the back of many private
landlords' minds, we suspect, when they are approaching this situation.
So, yes, in general, Mr Winnick, the answer to your questions
is I do agree with what Mr Winter has said.
David Winnick: Thank you very much.
Q467 Bob Russell: Mr Winter—National
Organiser of a very interestingly named organisation—you
said earlier that nuisances come in many different ways. Is it
possible, particularly just on the noise aspect, that some people
create a nuisance unknowingly? What is your organisation doing
to prevail upon local authorities, social landlords and the rest
of it to ensure that building materials in new-build and, hopefully,
within existing ones, are soundproof? There is a lot about loft
insulation and cavity wall, but what are you doing about—
Mr Winter: We have not campaigned
specifically on that issue. I am very much aware that some, perhaps,
lifestyle issues, as they may be described, when young people
come home late at night, living above an elderly couple, for instance,
that may cause a problem. I think we would know enough to say
that that should be solved through talking solutions: that is,
that people are approached and introduced to each other perhaps
and the situation explained to them.
Bob Russell: Could I ask you to take
away and make representations to the various organisations for
which you are the umbrella group to suggest they need to pursue
the building regulations, planners, house builders and designers
to build in and plan out potential noise nuisances?
Q468 Mrs Dean: Following on that, do
you pro-actively advise your tenants before problems arise of
the potential for noise nuisance or noise problems?
Mr Winter: Absolutely.
Q469 Mrs Dean: I think you said it was
in tenancy agreements. Is that common across the board in tenancy
agreements?
Mr Winter: Certainly in terms
of social landlords. I think the prevention of anti-social behaviour
by appropriate lettings is really essential. Good housing management
practice would dictate that you make appropriate lettings wherever
possible, and that would take those sorts of things into consideration
most certainly.
Q470 Mr Green: Can I ask Mr Rouse: we
have heard a lot about the balance between prevention and enforcement
action. Is there enough evidence around to tell us which works
best, or in which circumstances the route we should go?
Mr Rouse: I happen to believe
it is the two in combination, and I will say a little bit about
each. Secondly, I would say that we do not have enough evidence
in this area, full stop. One of the issues we face is that in
terms of registered social landlords the majority of the powers
which they now have available have only been in place since the
ASB Act of 2003, and therefore it is very early in terms of evidence.
So I would guess it is going to be two or three years before we
know whether we have got the right powers and whether the balance
is correct. Going back to the prevention side, most RSLs are engaged
in some form of preventative activity—certainly if they
are of any size—usually in partnership with the local authority.
That can include diversion activities—so a lot of housing
associations have youth provision of some form or another—and
it can also include support, particularly in terms of helping
tenants into work, a certain amount of parenting support, linking
up with SureStart, primary health centres and so on. So I think
it needs to be a balanced package.
Q471 Mr Green: I am sure you are right
that it is too early to tell, if you like, in an organised, statistical
way, but what is your instinct so far?
Mr Rouse: The instinct is that
prior to the Act housing associations did not have access to sufficient
powers on the enforcement side. It was very difficult for them
to use injunctions and they also did not have access to things
like demoted tenancies. I think since the Act the feedback we
are getting is that associations now believe that they probably
have got sufficient powers but it is too early to see how enforcement
is going to work out. The worries, if you like, are around, particularly,
the attitude of the courts to the use of these powers and whether
they are going to be consistent across the country in terms of
enabling associations to utilise those powers effectively.
Q472 Mr Green: I was going to ask about
that. Is inconsistency a problem?
Mr Rouse: Yes, the evidence is
that inconsistency is a problem, both in terms of acceptance of
the use of the powers—we have got a live case at the moment
which is going to the Court of Appeal tomorrow involving Moat
Housing Association's use of injunctions, where a local police
officer refused to enforce the injunction and the householder
has now appealed against that injunction, and that will be in
the Court of Appeal tomorrow. The other more general problem is
where the ASBO, or whatever it is, is upheld and the nature of
the penalties. One of the problems is if we get a series of very
small enforcement interventions in terms of fines or warnings,
ultimately, the protagonists will not take the ASBO seriously.
Q473 Mr Green: Mr Winter, what is your
experience on that?
Mr Winter: Inconsistency has been
a serious problem at many different levels. Judicial inconsistency,
for example: not knowing when you have gone to the court what
the likely outcome will be. Certainly in possession actions that
has been the experience. Certainly, inconsistency in the way that
CDRPs operate—who they engage and how. I suppose I should
point out the difficulty for many RSLs, who overlap several (sometimes
20 or 30) CDRP areas, to be represented on them, and there are
good examples of how that is being solved now by the creation
of consortia, for instance, of registered social landlords within
a local authority area so that they can be represented by one
person. There are very substantial inconsistencies there. I think
we should say something about the size. The Manchester experience
you will know about, where they have spent a lot of money and
where they have put a lot of resources into a specialist unit
to tackle nuisance and anti-social behaviour—housing based—but
it is often said that because they have got lots of resources
they can do it better than anybody. Oh no. There are examples
of small associations and local authorities with something like
2,500 or 3,500 properties who have taken the lead in their communities
in tackling this. So, yes, inconsistency is a problem but it is
getting better. Part of our group's function, if you like, is
to try and make that best practice that we can all describe to
you into common practice.
Q474 Mr Green: You make the point about
Manchester, and we have heard from them, and you are fourteen
times as likely to get as ASBO in Manchester as in Leicestershire,
and they make a big play about the use of ASBOs, almost as the
first resort, where I know in other parts of the country they
are very much thought of as the last resort, after a tiered approach
though. However, Manchester says it works and it has a lasting
impact. What is your view on that?
Mr Rouse: As a general principle
we prefer the tiered approach and certainly the use of Acceptable
Behaviour Contracts has been a successful way of getting commitments
and pledges, but the truth is that the Acceptable Behaviour Contracts
only work because the backstop of the ASBO is there and it is
that tiered approach that is effective. However, there will be
occasions, and Manchester is absolutely right, when actually the
key is to protect the community, and urgent and immediate action
is required, and going straight to an ASBO is a legitimate approach;
I just do not think that should be the norm.
Mr Winter: I agree with that.
I would also say that the Manchester impact is very substantial;
the message that "we are tackling, not tolerating, nuisance"
is in itself a preventative measure; it is not only an enforcement
action it is preventative in itself. It is not a desire to punish.
Manchester is using the injunctions and the Anti-social Behaviour
Orders in an injunctive sense to lay a line in the sand, just
saying "That is anti-social behaviour. Don't do it."
It is not criminalising it at the first stage, it is not desiring
to punish, it is desiring to provide the night's sleep for Mr
Winnick's constituent, if you like.
Q475 Mr Green: Mr Salusbury, I would
guess that private landlords often feel further detached from
the whole process of all these team meetings we have been hearing
about, and things like that, with RSLs and other bodies. Who do
your members think should be taking the lead in responding to
nuisance and anti-social behaviour?
Mr Salusbury: The private landlord,
indeed, does generally operate alone, and by definition, therefore,
will lack the resources provided by an organisation and, therefore,
will lay information before the appropriate authorities. We would
not think that the private landlord should, in fact, be expected,
by definition, to take the lead but he certainly should play a
part and have a role.
Q476 Mr Green: Who should take the lead?
Mr Salusbury: The appropriate
statutory authorities, having had the information laid before
them.
Q477 Mr Green: Does the Housing Corporation
have a view?
Mr Rouse: There is an issue in
terms of housing associations, which is often that if they use
the ultimate sanction of possession or eviction the problems are
transferred into the private sector, and that can often be on
a localised basis. You have displaced the problem but you have
got less control over it than you had before you started, which
is one of the reasons why Acceptable Behaviour Contracts are so
important; it is often better to deal with the problem in-situ
than transfer it to a place where actually it is much more difficult
to deal with.
Q478 Mr Green: As a final point, we have
had evidence from several organisations criticising housing associations
for applying for ASBOs and injunctions without consulting the
relevant agencies, like the YOTs. Is there any validity in those
complaints?
Mr Winter: No, in short. In preparation
for coming here I asked some members for their views and anything
I should express, and one view expressed quite commonly was the
difficulty in making that contact and keeping in contact with
YOTs and social services, and the fact that they might be invited
to meetings and not show. That was very frustrating. I have to
ask, I think, whether or not the duty under Section 17 of the
Crime and Disorder Act is being complied with.
Mr Rouse: I would not go quite
that far but there is evidence from housing associations, which
we are getting back, that sometimes the first time they see social
services is at the court in terms of getting through the ASBOs.
I think there may be a consistency problem amongst RSLs in terms
of their level of commitment to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships:
the best are very good but there are some falling behind. The
good news is that under the 2003 Act we are now under a statutory
responsibility to require every RSL to draw up an anti-social
behaviour strategy and their commitment to those partnerships
will be one of the key things we are looking for in those documents.
Obviously, we can monitor over time whether that commitment is
being seen through.
Q479 Mr Green: At the moment, whoever's
fault it is, there is a communication problem?
Mr Rouse: In some cases. In the
best cases there is not a problem; what we have got to do is bring
the rest up to the standards of the best partnerships in the country.
| 
