House of Commons - Home Affairs

Select Committee on Home Affairs Fifth Report

4 Dealing with anti-social neighbours

231. Prior to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the bulk of measures to deal with ASB were located in the specific context of housing. This reflects the fact that the issue first came to the fore when raised by social landlords who were facing increasing problems with persistent nuisance behaviour on housing estates. The subsequent change in legislative approach in which (according to a recent academic study) "the problem is not located in terms of housing or tenure but is more closely allied to a response based in criminal law, with criminal punishment against the individual perpetrator" reflects a growing recognition that ASB is not simply a social housing problem.[294] Nonetheless, the Government has continued to introduce specific measures to deal with ASB which occurs in a housing context.

232. The Government has legislated regularly in the past few years in order to combat housing-related ASB. Part V of the Housing Act 1996 strengthened landlords' powers to deal with ASB by the introduction of three key provisions: the provision of introductory tenancies, extended grounds for possession and new forms of injunction. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced multi-agency crime reduction strategies and ASBOs, and imposed a duty on local authorities to consider the effects of its policies on crime and disorder. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 strengthened witness protection powers. The Police Reform Act 2002 introduced the interim ASBO, and the ASBO on conviction, extended the power to apply for ASBOs to registered social landlords (RSLs) and British Transport Police, and enabled applications for ASBOs to be made in county courts in connection with other proceedings (most commonly possession claims). The Homelessness Act 2002 provided local authorities with the power to refuse to allocate social housing to any person or household guilty of serious ASB, in which case their rights to accommodation were effectively limited to whatever rights they may have as homeless persons. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 introduced a positive duty on social landlords to prepare and publish policies and procedures in relation to ASB, extended the scope of injunctions, allowed Housing Action Trusts and County Councils to apply for ASBOs and introduced the concept of "demoted tenancies".[295] The Housing Act 2004 allowed for the extension of the introductory tenancy probationary period where behaviour is giving cause for concern, set up a selective licensing scheme for private landlords, with licences including conditions relating to the need to deal with ASB and penalties for operating without a licence or failing to carry out the terms of the licence, and permitted the right to buy to be suspended on the grounds of ASB.

233. It is, of course, true that many "neighbours from hell" with a disproportionate impact on the quality of life of people living around them happen to be children. Many of the comments we make in the previous section of this report—in relation to issues such as the need for a holistic response, problems of co-ordination and participation, and some of the specific measures that relate to young people—are therefore also relevant in the housing context.[296] In this section we focus on those interventions that apply specifically to nuisance neighbours. We begin by discussing the range of possible interventions before considering what determines the response in practice at local level.

The spectrum of possible interventions

No response

234. Sometimes there will be no response at all from local authorities to ASB-related problems. UK Noise Association claimed that this is typical of many local authorities in relation to noise nuisance:

In our experience, many local authorities are reluctant to use the powers they have to deal with the noise perpetrator. It is likely they would be equally or more reluctant to use stronger powers. Far too often local authority officers, housing officers and housing association officials are reluctant to term neighbour noise as anti-social behaviour. Instead they tend to talk about a "clash of lifestyles" or "a neighbour dispute" or brand the victim as "over-sensitive".[297]

235. Mr Lee of Manchester City Council told us:

The biggest source of complaint at public meetings is: "How many diaries do I have to fill in"—well it is said—"before anybody on that top table does anything at all? Is it 61, Mr Lee? Is it 62? Just let me know when I get to the magic number because I will go to number 70 for you but I really want something done now." Housing officers and police officers and wardens and environmental health officers who allow diaries to pile up on their desks when someone is writing: "I am in danger of losing my job now because of the loud music—I cannot get up to go to work and I have been disciplined this morning by the security manager—because I have had no sleep this week." Those are real examples of what people have to put up with.[298]

236. The creators of the website, Neighbours from Hell in Britain, described common problems faced by complainants:

Mediation is turned down by the other party.
The police are not aware of the law/action to take, often saying it is a civil matter or a 'domestic' situation.
The police are unable to respond due to lack of resources and staff; it can take a week in some cases for police attendance, if they arrive at all.
The EHO [Environmental Health Office] are understaffed and under-funded and often victims have to wait months for a chance to use noise recording equipment
In some cases, the EHO out of hours number is not staffed and answer machines are in place: again this seems to be due to under-funding and staff shortages
CAB [Citizen Advice Bureaux] are often unable to help due to the other party attending CAB for advice and it is seen as a conflict of interest—there is not always another CAB office in the area that people can attend.[299]

237. However, Mr Winter from the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, told us that in the past ten years, "the agenda has fundamentally changed from tolerating anti-social behaviour to tackling it. Most agencies have come fully on board with that agenda".[300]

Family-based interventions

238. In some instances, the source of neighbour nuisance is not one individual but an entire family. Often such families have multi-faceted problems and are well known to all the relevant local agencies. The Family Welfare Association told us about one such family that has been causing major problems to its neighbours, and gave us details of the involvement of agencies and the remedial measures that had been attempted:

Education Social work interventions have stopped short of legal intervention although this has been threatened.
Social services have had to use child protection procedures after serious allegations about Lyn's care and all three oldest children have spent time 'looked after' by local authorities although it is not clear to anyone what necessitated this and no records have followed the family.
Probation Services have been involved with Edward for many years.
Housing officers have visited to assess the safety of the property. They are repelled, as is anybody that comes from 'the council'.
Noise abatement notices to remove cars and other large broken items from the roadside has also been thwarted.
YOT members are working hard to keep the twins involved in programmes of behavioural change and anger management: as this is not supported by the wider family any gains here are unlikely to be permanent.
A number of 'acceptable' agencies have offered support to the family and continue to do so: health visitors are generally seen by the parents as 'all right' provided they don't challenge their parenting in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable. If they do so they are 'sacked' and never allowed to enter the house again.
Teachers and schools are usually ignored, as are letters. Both parents are illiterate. […]
The father says 'violence is a language to me' and professionals believe it. The family is a byword for unprovoked, violent responses to reasonable approaches. […] It is the extended nature of the family that seems to [most] intimidate professionals: one never deals with a single-family member, and all of them get involved immediately, called from all over the borough to 'help out'. The extended family are equally and often more intimidating than that of the family under review.[301]

239. According to Ms Rhodes, representing the Family Welfare Association, there are an estimated 50 families like these per local authority that attract the involvement of all the agencies.[302] This particular family was an especially difficult case because they were privately renting the property from another member of the extended family—hence many of the housing-based powers were unavailable to the local authority.

240. The Home Office has described the challenge of working with difficult families such as these, noting that "the perpetrators can play off one agency against another; avoid taking the help they need and not address their behaviour". It argued:

In cases involving families, enforcement and support must be directed at both parents and children, making sure that work with parents reinforces, complements and links to work being carried out with the child. This involves multi-agency collaboration with every agency working to a common shared goal - the modification of the behaviour of the family for the benefit of all concerned.[303]

241. One project which works on this basis is the Shelter Inclusion Project. An interim evaluation of this Project—published in February 2004—stated the principle that lies behind it: that "in many instances behaviour deemed anti-social is due to unmet support needs. The service has therefore been set up to work with households who have had difficulty in complying with the terms of their tenancy agreements and aims to provide assessments and packages of support to address issues rendering households vulnerable to eviction and exclusion".[304] A multi-disciplinary team has been set up for this purpose. Ms Monaghan—Children and Young Persons' Worker on the Project—told us:

When you are faced with a family sometimes that can be quite a chaotic environment to work with. We try to find out exactly what is happening. First of all, we might look at the complaints that have been made and see what is happening there, what is building up to that and really trying to put interventions in place immediately to stop that. We are concerned about the whole issue, so we do not want to see this behaviour continue. We want to see a longterm solution to it. A lot of my work is with the parents and I work with the children and young people. With the parents, it is about looking again at parenting skills. Over 60% of the households that we have worked with have identified a personal mental health illness. […] We also liaise quite closely with other agencies in Rochdale. Parents would attend separate parenting courses and things like that. Sometimes we need to develop their confidence in order to do that.[305]

According to Ms Monaghan, the degree of intervention varies from case to case, with a general minimum period of two months.[306]

242. A full evaluation of this project is expected in 2006, including a cost-benefit analysis. In the meantime, with the exception of this and the Dundee Families Project, we have been told that there is "a dearth of good practice examples" of family-based interventions.[307] Mr Salusbury, Chair of the National Landlords Federation, told us where these fitted in to the range of possible interventions to tackle ASB:

I think, as we have increased our ability and commitment to take enforcement action, we have become aware that there is a huge danger of recycling some of the most seriously dysfunctional families, and that those dysfunctional families do need rehabilitative work like the Dundee Families Project.[308]

243. The Government's strategy in respect of dysfunctional families is two-fold. First, in February 2004, it set up a Neighbour Nuisance Expert Panel—consisting of experts from local authorities, the police, youth offending teams, social services and the voluntary sector—to advise local authorities and social landlords who can nominate their most challenging and difficult neighbour nuisance cases. This seems to have met with some success: in 66% of cases behaviour had improved and the problems curtailed.[309] The Home Office announced that the work of the Panel will be continuing for a second year. Second, in September 2004, it introduced intensive parenting programmes in the 10 "TOGETHER trailblazer areas". In February 2005, it was announced that these would be extended to 50 "action areas", with £25,000 being given to each area—a total expenditure of £1.25 million.

244. Mr Rouse, Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation, commented on this figure:

The evidence of the Shelter project, for example, in Rochdale is it is the combination of mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts that set out the responsibilities of the various parties that is most effective. In that case, 88% of the referrals are still in their own property as a result. However, it is worth saying that the Rochdale project cost £300,000 per annum, and if you compare that to the £25,000 each that is going to the new 50 priority areas under the Home Office, it gives you some idea of what may or may not be doable with those resources.[310]

245. We asked Ministers whether £25,000 would be sufficient for the priority areas identified. Ms Blears MP argued that most of the resources should come from local authorities and agencies, and that the redirection of activities and expenditure would result in some "long-term gains for local authorities".[311]

246. We welcome the Government's announcement that £1.25 million would be added to help fund intensive family-based interventions. It is clear that these types of intervention are essential if the deepest-rooted ASB problems are not simply recycled from area to area. However, we note that this is unlikely to be sufficient on its own and make further recommendations in this area in Section 6.

Mediation

247. One possible response to a complaint about neighbour nuisance is to try to explore the possibility of mediation between the two sides: Peterborough Mediation Service has argued that this "should be an integral part of any strategy to combat anti-social behaviour".[312] Peterborough Mediation, formed in 1998 as a registered charity, described to us the nature of its service:

The Service is provided free of charge to people who live within the geographical area covered by Peterborough City Council. People can contact the service themselves, in addition, agencies with which we have agreements can refer their tenants, clients or customers to us. We also provide a service on behalf of a number of other local authorities.

Whilst our core business is dealing with neighbour nuisance, we also undertake work in other areas, including victim / young offender mediation, preventing homelessness and community cohesion.

248. Mr David Copeland, Director of Peterborough Mediation Service, emphasised to us the benefits of mediation. Although he conceded that success is only likely if both parties are receptive from the outset, he told us that two out of three cases are resolved or there is improved communication or understanding. In addition, in 85% of cases there was a reduction in client contact with agencies, and "in many of those cases there is no further contact at all with actual agencies". Mr Copeland argued that the reduction in agency workload allowed them to deal with "the more persistent offences of ASB" and to be "more proactive in terms of regeneration, cohesion work within their areas".[313] Mr Lee, from Manchester City Council, similarly told us that 70% of neighbour nuisance cases brought to mediation were resolved successfully. Mr Winter from the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group put the general figure at 80% of appropriate referrals, adding that mediation is "a very important part of tackling neighbourhood disputes—inter-generational disputes particularly".[314]

249. There was disagreement amongst witnesses as to the type of case for which mediation is an appropriate tool. The Restorative Justice Consortium argued:

the basic presumption should be 'try restorative justice first'. It will not always work, but when it does, it can solve the problem far more effectively than recourse to the courts. It is far less expensive both in terms of the direct costs and, to use a dispute between neighbours as an example, it can save indirect costs such as the expense and stress of eviction and re-housing.[315]

250. However, others have argued that mediation is sometimes used inappropriately. For instance, the UK Noise Association considered that mediation was overused—a sign that local authorities and housing associations are "reluctant to attach blame". It argued further that to use mediation in response to deliberate ASB "allows the noise perpetrator to avoid responsibility for his/her anti-social behaviour by being able to imply that it is, in part, the fault of the victim. […] In these circumstances the result of mediation would be to prolong the anti-social behaviour".[316] Mr Lee agreed:

Mediation is appropriate for parking, boundary disputes, kids falling out in the street, younger kids. It is not appropriate to ask you to go and mediate with a neighbour who has subjected you to racist abuse or violence or burgled your property. Those are inappropriate referrals. I think they take up scarce resources that mediation has. I think that they could get on a lot more with the boundary disputes, parking issues and get them resolved, but I think there is a small minority of cases that go to mediation that are not appropriate. They should be taking legal action there.[317]

Mr Winter, from the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, told us that mediation was inappropriate "if there is a power imbalance, if people are addicted to drink, drugs or whatever; if there can be no guarantee that when they wake up the next day they know what they have agreed to, that is not an appropriate case to mediate—those sorts of things".[318]

251. On the other hand, Mr Copeland considered that mediation could be used more widely:

I think our scope of cases is far wider than the examples Martin has given. They might not be appropriate when the initial incident occurs, but they might become appropriate later on in the process when the initial action has been taken. […] At the end of the day the victim - for want of a better word - his views are paramount. If they want to try and resolve this and want to try and build some form of a relationship with their neighbour, then mediation can be appropriate further down the line and just because it is very serious at the start point I do not think - in fact I know - that should not exclude mediation further down the line.[319]

252. Given the level of disagreement surrounding the type of case which would constitute an appropriate referral, an important question is how cases are referred in practice. New Forest, Southampton and SW Hants Mediation told us of an agreement reached with Southampton City Council housing offices according to which they make an initial assessment of all complaints made to determine whether the complaint is appropriate for mediation. Under this approach, over 80% of cases had been resolved at this stage and within 15 working days of the initial complaint.[320] Other local authorities have decided to follow this approach, including Portsmouth City Council, Lambeth Council and Haringey Council. We note, however, that as a case is deemed successful "if the same complaint does not return to the housing office within 6 months", it is quite possible that complainants dissatisfied with the response and who therefore turn elsewhere for assistance are included in this figure of 80%.

253. In other cases, referral arrangements seem to be guided largely by the views of the local authority. According to Mr Copeland, the use of mediation has been increasing, largely on account of the duty under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 for registered social landlords, the police and local authorities to devise and implement ASB strategies. However, Mr Copeland criticised the current funding arrangement as "ad hoc", adding:

Clearly mediation is still quite vulnerable in some parts of the country. Only 60% of the country has effective coverage at the moment. If it was going to be seen to be almost, shall we say, statutory, for want of a better word, or a requirement that it will be part of the process then clearly that needs perhaps to be a lead from Government; there needs to be funding accessible via regional development agencies or the GOs or whatever. […] As you say, some Local Authorities do not see that it is a priority for some reason.[321]

254. We conclude that mediation is an important tool that is cost-effective and can help to deal efficiently with neighbour nuisance cases. However, according to the Director of Peterborough Mediation Service, mediation is underused, with only 60% of the country currently having effective coverage. This is a cause for concern, as are claims that mediation is sometimes used inappropriately.

255. In our view, the solution to the problems both of under-use and inappropriate use is to make the referral mechanism far more systematic throughout the country. New Forest, Southampton and SW Hants Mediation offers one model in taking over the complaints of local authorities so as to assess the prospects for mediation, although we believe that research is needed to establish whether it is as successful as it claims. We recommend that this is done and that the Government works with local authorities to spread this or another referral mechanism as an example of best practice.

Enforcement powers to deal with social tenants

256. Social landlords now have a range of powers to deal with anti-social tenants.[322] In addition to ASBOs (considered earlier, at paragraphs 183-222), these powers include different types of housing injunctions, introductory and demoted tenancies, and possession orders. The powers tackle behaviour in different ways: injunctions prohibit ASB directly, and breach is a contempt of court; demotion orders and introductory tenancies work by linking behaviour to security of tenure, making it easier for the landlord to seek possession if behaviour does not improve. A detailed description of the main legal features of these powers is provided in an annex to this report.[323] Here, we concentrate on the extent to which they have been used in practice and to what effect.

257. The development of new powers to deal with social tenants has been welcomed by several housing-based organisations.[324] The Chartered Institute of Housing noted the limitations of previous arrangements such that "traditionally, possession action was the only tool social landlords had to tackle ASB". It argued that "as an all or nothing power its effectiveness was limited".[325] The Housing Corporation stated that "associations have in the past found it difficult to make full use of their injunctive powers" and welcomed the changes made in the 2003 Act.[326] The Northern Housing Consortium concluded that social landlords "have sufficient powers at their disposal to tackle ASB", although arguing that issues surrounding these powers (such as co-ordination and resources) remained.[327] Mr Winter, Chief Executive of the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, told us the view of officials at the London Borough of Camden:

They said, "The legislation is great. There are no excuses now. We cannot see the need for new remedies." That is a serious player who is saying that.[328]

258. In commenting further on the application of these powers, the main concern of each of these organisations has been how they can operate more effectively. The Northern Housing Consortium argued that the main barrier to using powers was a lack of resources, stating that "whilst there may be great enthusiasm to use new powers available, this is tempered by frustration at not being able to use these powers due to the sheer volume of case work which needs to be done and can be dealt with by utilising existing powers".[329] It added that "resources remain a key problem, with demand for tenancy enforcement services continuing to outweigh the capacity of ASB teams".[330] Mr Rouse, Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation, agreed with this, telling us that the cost of securing ASBOs and injunctions is often too high, and arguing that the Home Office and Department for Constitutional Affairs have a responsibility to see if procedures can be streamlined.[331]

259. In addition, Mr Rouse pointed to the inconsistency of decisions made by magistrates—a view shared by the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, which told us that its members "are continually frustrated by the perversity of some judgments and the lack of consistency between Courts. Often the effect of such inconsistency is seen to work to the advantage of the perpetrator".[332] Both allegations—of inconsistency and of favouring the perpetrator—were, however, sharply rejected by Ms Barnett representing the Magistrates Association. She told us:

From the view of inconsistency I think it must be stressed—and it cannot be stressed too heavily—that each individual case before each individual court is exactly that, individual, and there is no such thing as an automatic Anti-Social Behaviour Order, nor is there such a thing as an automatic sentence for a breach of that; each case has to be looked at in terms of its individual circumstances. […] I do not accept - I am sure you will not be surprised to hear - that it is a question of our - if that is the implication - favouring the perpetrator, not taking it seriously enough or not having the sense to deal with it sensibly. What we have found in very many cases is that the standard of prosecution, if I can put it that way, or presentation of information to the court, has similarly been extremely variable across the country. And the other basic and fundamental principle is that we can only deal with what is before us in court; we cannot deal with guesses or hypothesis, it has to be the evidence that is there.[333]

260. On the other hand, some organisations have criticised the extension of housing powers, with particular concern about their potential impact on homelessness. Several suggestions have been made as to how such an impact may be diminished. The Law Society argued that eviction and demotion should be distinguished. It recommended that legislation should require landlords, on application for a demotion order, to produce a plan to support a tenant's rehabilitation; however, a claim for possession should be seen as an attempt at a final resolution.[334] Shelter similarly recommended that demotion should come with support, and that there should be guidance to this effect.[335]

261. Centrepoint went further in its criticisms of both injunctive and demotion powers:

Injunctions and demotions both increase the likelihood that someone will lose their home and potentially become homeless. It seems doubtful that excluding someone from their home will prevent the behaviour for which the injunction was given.[336]

The Crime and Society Foundation supplied us with a number of cases where ASB legislation had impacted negatively on the vulnerable, although in many of these cases cited the people do not seem actually to have been evicted, and arguably would not have been by the court. The following is one example:

A woman was undergoing possession action for nuisance. When Shelter obtained copies of the evidence, it emerged that almost all the incidents involved her partner threatening, beating and, in one instance, raping her (this was witnessed by neighbours). She obtained an injunction with a power of arrest against her partner. Shelter offered to help her fight the possession action. However, she declined this and decided to leave and find alternative accommodation instead.[337]

262. Other witnesses told us that there is a place for eviction in the most serious cases. Sergeant Paul Dunn said that, in appropriate cases, it was about "sending a message that certain things … will not be tolerated". Ms Bridgen, representing Shelter, agreed, although adding that it should be used "as a last resort". Mr Lee told us that Manchester City Council had not evicted often—in total, around 230 families in the past ten years—however, there were some "criminals and racists who needed to be evicted, full stop". Mr Lee added that "people who are using our properties for illegal drugs and so on, they have to go or we do not have any credibility".[338] All witnesses emphasised the importance of using ASBOs whenever a possession order is sought to ensure that the evictee does not then reappear "two streets away when they have been evicted from a council property and carry on the same behaviour".[339]

263. In assessing all these arguments, we have been hampered by a lack of relevant data. We did gather some anecdotal evidence. For instance, the Crime and Society Foundation pointed to academic research carried out in relation to one local authority which alleged that "housing agencies are more readily resorting to eviction", citing evidence that "the stock transfer from the local authority to a housing association had led to an increase in evictions, and an unwillingness to take 'risks' with young people and families with high support needs".[340] Another academic study, published in 2001, suggested that "it was not uncommon for landlords to initiate possession action in order to gain a response from the social services".[341]

264. We also learnt about the approach of Manchester City Council, which has used injunctions and ASBOs extensively and has not tended to seek possession. Mr Lee told us:

You raised the issue of displacing people to the private rented sector, that is why in Manchester we do not do that many evictions, because we know that they will just move into the private sector.[342]

Criminals and racists need to go from council properties to send out the message to other people that we will not have that sort of behaviour. In other cases, as I think we have said, we prefer injunctions and ASBOs because we recognise this: people are going to lodge somewhere eventually, they are going to live somewhere. It is about changing people's behaviour towards other people. Injunctions and ASBOs set a line. If you cross it, you go to prison, but that is your choice.[343]

265. The Government does not collect data relating to the use of housing injunctions or possession orders.[344] There is thus no objective means of assessing the extent to which powers have been used, the level of variation around the country, whether there is a tendency for particular powers to be used in combination with other powers or the impact of the new possession powers on homelessness.

266. We asked the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Yvette Cooper MP, how it was possible to know whether the Government's strategy was working on the ground, given the non-availability of relevant statistics. She admitted that the Government does not have "a lot of the information that we ought to have", although she claimed that "there is a lot more happening than there was" and that "RSLs are already using some the powers that they have".[345] She agreed that eviction should be used as a measure of last resort, but was unable to know how often eviction had been used in response to ASB in the absence of more detailed figures.[346] Overall, the Minister agreed that "we do not have evidence on the way in which the measures are being used at the moment and the impact they are having", although she argued that this was partially because a lot of the measures are new.[347]

267. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister then provided us with some additional information:

A number of injunctive powers are available to local authorities seeking to deal with ASB under the Housing Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 1972. It is the Department's view that asking local authorities to supply information on the type and numbers of actions requested would place an undue burden on them and could not easily be justified. This information will of course be held locally. The Housing Corporation do not require this information from RSLs and nor do they have any plans to do so at this stage.[348]

It added that, recognising the importance of measuring take-up and the effectiveness of these measures, it would "examine the possibility of carrying out sample snapshot surveys as well as research on the effectiveness of these and other measures in the longer term".[349]

268. We welcome the introduction of the new housing-based powers, in particular, the powers of injunction and demotion. However, it is unsatisfactory that the Government has created these powers but not collected the data necessary to know whether they are being used or used effectively. Despite the fact that several of the powers, such as possession orders and housing injunctions, have been in force for several years, the Government does know how or how often they are being used, whether eviction is being used appropriately, or the impact of its ASB measures on homelessness. We note that the Government has now committed to collecting data relating to possession orders, with first figures to be published in 2006, and we welcome this. However, it has no plans to do the same in relation to housing injunctions, despite recognising that this information is already available locally and that data relating to ASBOs—a not dissimilar legal power—is collected. We do not believe that asking local authorities and registered social landlords to keep and supply records of their injunction applications would place an undue burden on them, and we recommend that the Government asks them to do so. In addition, we recommend that in-depth qualitative research studies should be conducted as a matter of urgency to determine take-up of the main housing powers, their effectiveness in tackling ASB and their impact on homelessness.

269. It is essential that the available powers and tools are used together in the most effective manner. We return to this point in Section 6. We have heard, for instance, of the strong advantages of offering adequate support in conjunction with demotion orders and of using ASBOs in conjunction with possession orders, and we recommend that both of these points are promoted by the Government as examples of best practice.

Private tenants and selective licensing schemes

270. Although the response to ASB was originally located in the context of social housing, it is clear that many nuisance neighbours are not social tenants but private tenants or owner-occupiers. In respect of private tenants, some of our witnesses argued that landlords often act irresponsibly. For instance, the Housing Corporation stated that "there have been too many cases of tenants of social housing being evicted due to their ASB and then moving into a privately let property".[350] The Northern Housing Consortium told us that a "significant number of problems arise in the private sector that are ignored due to absentee landlords or landlords that do not have the skills or capacity to tackle the problems".[351] On the other hand, the National Landlords Association stated that it is important not to demonise all landlords:

Whereas housing authorities or Registered Social Landlords may be able to act "corporately" and bring power to bear on anti-social tenants, the relationship between a tenant and private landlord is more likely to be one-on-one. As a result the private landlord may themselves feel vulnerable at the thought of having to face a problem tenant. This may particularly be the case when the landlord is a woman, and as owning rental property becomes more attractive to women the problem is likely to grow.

The landlord may also have a poor knowledge of the law in this area, especially if they have not had to deal with such a situation before. At the same time they will fear that failure to act completely within the law will result in them being penalised. The line between legitimate perusal of a tenant for bad behaviour and harassment is very thin.[352]

In addition, the Association argued that all local authorities ought to provide landlords with reference checks on potential tenants and vet their previous records on behaviour, as is done already in some areas.

271. Mr Salusbury, Chair of the National Landlords Association, told us that in practice, a private landlord ought to respond to ASB on the part of his tenant by contacting the local housing department or ASB officer and asking for some support (the housing department would have no responsibility for that property). This is because "it is not the property that is causing problems; it is the occupants", and because the local authority is more likely to know people who might have responsibility in this area.[353]

272. The Government has responded to concerns about ASB simply moving on to the private sector by introducing new powers for local authorities.[354] The Housing Act 2004 provides for the licensing of private landlords, so that they can be required to combat ASB in their properties. An area can be designated by local housing authorities if they are satisfied that:[355]

a) the area is experiencing a significant and persistent problem caused by anti-social behaviour;

b) some or all of the private sector landlords who have let premises in the area (whether under leases or licences) are failing to take action to combat the problem that it would be appropriate for them to take; and

c) making a designation will, when combined with other measures taken in the area by the local housing authority, or by other persons together with the local housing authority, lead to a reduction in, or the elimination of, the problem.

273. Once an area has been designated, private landlords must normally apply for licences. Licences must be granted only to people who are "fit and proper". Conditions can be attached to licences, including "conditions requiring the taking of reasonable and practicable steps to prevent or reduce anti-social behaviour by persons occupying or visiting the house".[356]

274. None of these powers is yet in force, and the Government is currently consulting on how best to implement the Act. Mr Salusbury criticised the consultation and the principles behind the Act, although he also told us that he is keen to work with the Government:

The first consultation round is now completed, and I have the list of questions here that were sent to my organisation, amongst others, and there are no fewer than 55 questions in this document, and each question is multi-choice. There are over 200 questions, which suggests to us that the Government does not really know how it wishes to implement this; it is asking us to suggest how it might be implemented when we have advised throughout that licensing is not the answer for the private rented sector; it is likely to be bureaucratic, very expensive - and disproportionate, I think, is the word.[357]

275. Other witnesses were more enthusiastic about the new selective licensing arrangements. Mr Rouse, from the Housing Corporation, told us:

We think it is going to be very helpful in dealing with, for example, absentee landlords who have effectively lost control of an area, or are in the housing market renewal areas where there is a significant number of empty properties which are not being properly controlled. So we welcome the introduction of selective licensing, while recognising that it will not apply to the vast majority of landlords who are doing a very good job, but in some areas it is a good thing.[358]

Mr Winter, from the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group agreed, telling us that selective licensing "is potentially very useful". Mr Rouse added that licence conditions could be used to help ensure the participation of some of the larger private landlords with the CDRPs.[359]

276. We welcome the principle behind the new powers for selective licensing of private landlords. The Government is right to believe that ASB is not a problem related solely to social housing. However, we note that the success of the new scheme will depend very much on how it is implemented and that the proposals are still to be fully developed. It is important that the scheme is as unbureaucratic as possible and that local authorities have appropriate guidance so that they use discretion in a way that will target the unscrupulous landlords rather than those who are victims of their tenants' behaviour.

277. We accept that most private landlords cannot be expected to operate the full range of management responses to ASB that are expected of social landlords. Nonetheless, prompt and effective action by private landlords could help to tackle many problems at an early stage. We recommend that police and local authorities work together with representatives of private landlords to produce local codes of conduct that set out how responsible private landlords are expected to respond to nuisance complaints and the support they can expect from public bodies.

Dealing with owner-occupiers

278. In paragraphs 231-232 above, we noted the social housing context to many of the initial ASB measures and the incremental introduction of new powers in recent years. Several organisations have argued, however, that these new powers have neglected one particular group: anti-social owner occupiers. For instance, the Tenant Participation Advisory Service argued that there is a "clear and urgent need to address the seeming vacuum of measures for dealing with anti-social owner occupiers".[360] In addition, the Chartered Institute for Housing noted that suggestions for further work to tackle ASB in the owner occupied and privately rented sectors were made in the Social Exclusion Unit's report of Policy Action Team 8 but that there had been no further developments.[361]

279. We asked Mr Lee, from Manchester City Council, what tools were available to local authorities to deal with anti-social owner-occupiers. He told us:

Thank God for the ASBO. […] What did we have before the AntiSocial Behaviour Order to deal with antisocial behaviour in private tenancies and owner-occupiers? We were relying entirely on private landlords to effectively evict people, but in parts that means they just move in two streets away to another private tenancy, so we have to be clear: that is why the ASBO is fantastic. Otherwise owner-occupiers would be handing in their keys to building societies in the dead of night hoping that they did not catch up with them to move to another address.[362]

Yvette Cooper also pointed to the availability of ASBOs and acceptable behaviour contracts, adding that local authorities and housing associations have powers to take out injunctions if the owner-occupier's behaviour is in an area which they broadly manage and if the problem is relevant to their ability to manage their properties.[363]

280. We conclude that no new powers are needed in relation to anti-social owner-occupiers: ASBOs and other powers are already available and ought to be sufficient.

294 Hunter and Nixon, "Social Landlords' Reponses to Neighbour Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour: from the negligible to the holistic?" Local Government Studies 2001, 27(4), 90 Back

295 It also created a power of arrest which could be granted in conjunction with Local Government Act 1982, section 222 injunctions. Back

296 As an illustration of this, Sergeant Dunn told us that 85% of acceptable behaviour contracts-a measure largely used for teenagers-were nuisance neighbour cases. Back

297 Ev 138, HC 80-II Back

298 Q 110. The "diaries" to which Mr Lee referred are, in effect, records of incidents as they occur. Mr Winter, from the Social Landlords and Nuisance Group, recommended that they be called "incident logs" so as to imply that, if necessary, action will be taken on the basis of what is recorded. Back

299 Ev 192, HC 80-III Back

300 Q 461 Back

301 Ev 161-3, HC 80-III Back

302 Q 19 Back

303 Home Office, Neighbour Nuisance - Background Briefing (attached to Press Release 030/2005 (14 February 2005) Back

304 Housing Corporation and Shelter, Shelter Inclusion Project: interim evaluation findings, 2004. Unfortunately, it was too early for the interim evaluation to assess the effectiveness of the project in reducing ASB. Back

305 Ibid. Back