44. Memorandum submitted by the Social
Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Social Landlord's Crime and Nuisance
Group [SLCNG] has become the leading housing based organisation
focussing on nuisance and ASB.
1.2 The Group was formed in 1995 and comprises
more than 240 member organisations, including local authorities,
registered social landlords, arms length management organisations
[ALMOs], stock transfer organisations, tenant groups and a Housing
Action Trust. The organisation represents some 3 million tenancies
in the UK. The SLCNG has developed close working relationships
with others including the Local Government Association, the National
Housing Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing, TPAS Cymru
and TPAS England.
1.3 The Group has been privileged to work
with government ministers and officials over the past nine years
and has been involved with the development of legislative powers
during that time.
1.4 The Group provides support to its membership
through its newsletter, conferences and seminars, to help promote
good practice in dealing with anti-social behaviour.
2. THE EFFECTS
OF ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR
2.1 The lead in tackling ASB at the local
level started with housing organisations. Since the early 1990's
the main concern of tenants has been the lack of response of the
authorities to deal with low level crime, nuisance and ASB.
2.2 The primary role of the SLCNG has been
to lobby for additional powers to deal with ASB. It is the Group's
view that the instability created within communities as a result
of ASB needs to be tackled through enforcement before longer term
initiatives to deal with the causes of the problem and the rehabilitation
of perpetrators can be tackled.
3. THE CAUSES
OF ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR
3.1 There is a widely held view that the
erosion of landlords' powers and the increase in tenants' rights
over the past 25 years helped create an environment where landlords
were unable to tackle ASB through the powers contained within
the housing legislation and the Local Government Act.
4. EFFECTIVENESS
AND PROPORTIONALITY
OF CURRENT
POWERS
4.1 The development of powers to deal with
ASB has been ad hoc, reactive and, in earlier years, unco-ordinated
at government level.
4.2 Nevertheless, the gradual development
of powers to restrain behaviour rather than evict tenants is clearly
more beneficial to all concerned.
4.3 Taking some of the Current Powers
in Turn:
4.3.1 Possession: Traditionally, possession
action was the only tool social landlords had to tackle ASB. When
social landlords had recourse to the Magistrates Court for repossession
such action was quick and certain. Taking possession proceedings
through the County Courts is less quick and not always certain.
This point will be revisited later. Given the effectiveness of
other legislation, action which directly addresses behaviour will
generally be attempted before possession is applied for.
4.3.2 Injunctions: The use of the injunctive
powers contained within the Housing Act 1996 gave social landlords
the opportunity to restrain behaviour, coupled with the power
of arrest. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 strengthened these
powers and equalised the position between local authority landlords
and registered social landlords.
4.3.3 Anti-social Behaviour Orders:
4.3.3.1 The gradual familiarisation of social
landlords and the Courts in the use of ASBOs has resulted in this
form of injunctive power being particularly effective. However,
there needs to be swift action by the CPS on breach if an ASBO
is to be successful.
4.3.3.2 The collaboration required between
agencies in the procurement of ASBOs has led to a greater degree
of understanding and partnership working between those agencies
which has been as important as the injunctive power itself and
it has resulted in more effective working arrangements at the
front line. As a result "non-legal" initiatives such
as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts have developed which have helped
the incremental approach to tackling ASB.
4.3.4 Dispersal Orders: Social landlords
have welcomed the development of these powers, which are proving
to be effective and are welcomed within the community.
4.3.5 Demotion: Demotion is a potentially
effective deterrent to ASB, although the Group is concerned about
the late publication on guidance on this element of the Anti-social
Behaviour Act.
5. ENFORCEMENT
AND CO
-ORDINATION:
5.1 There is no doubt that the introduction
of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) has helped
co-ordinate and focus activity at the local level. The inclusion
of Registered Social Landlords on CDRPs has done much to ensure
that Crime and Disorder strategies have the ownership that is
required by all social landlords for maximum effectiveness. However
there are still inconsistencies of representation on CDRPs and
key players within local authorities are often absent from the
table. This is a criticism that members of the Group often level
at Social Services and Education Departments, in particular. There
is a need for all real and potential partners of the CDRPs to
recognise their responsibility.
5.2 Members of the Group are continually
frustrated by the perversity of some judgements and the lack of
consistency between Courts. Often the effect of such inconsistency
is seen to work to the advantage of the perpetrator. There needs
to be consistency of service delivery and certainty of Court outcome
if citizens are to have a standard expectation about how anti-social
behaviour will be dealt with, irrespective of their post-code.
5.3 The SLCNG are very concerned about the
issue of witness support. Although much has been done to develop
better and more consistent approaches to witness support over
the past few years the SLCNG feels that a Witness Charter should
be developed to set national guidelines by which these key players
in the fight against anti-social behaviour will be supported.
5.4 SLCNG has long promoted the use of information
exchange protocols and are concerned that not all CDRPs have implemented
them. Member organisations even report inconsistencies of approach
between Divisions within the same Police force. Although the Crime
and Disorder Act created the power to share information to combat
ASB more needs to be done to ensure that the Police, in particular,
use their powers more productively. The Bichard Inquiry makes
it clear that better guidance is needed on information sharing
generally.
6. THE IMPACT
OF GOVERNMENT
INITIATIVES:
6.1 Given the Government's previously fractured
approach to tackling anti-social behaviour and the lack of co-ordination
between departments it is refreshing that a more strategic approach
now seems to be adopted by Government.
6.2 The development of the Together programme
and the establishment of the Anti-social Behaviour Unit at the
Home Office should prove to be a long-lasting focus for action.
The use of successful and effective practitioners as Ambassadors
will help promote good practice. The Unit needs to continue to
work closely with partners at the local level to facilitate proactive
work.
6.3. Neighbourhood Wardens have been welcomed
by social landlords and tenants alike. There does not seem to
be a standard way of working across the country but they can adopt
roles that usefully supplement those of front line housing staff
and police officers. Members of the Group are concerned about
the long term funding issues.
6.4. Police Community Safety Officers have
a similar role in reassuring the community and their powers to
enforce are welcomed. As with neighbourhood wardens long term
commitment from the Home Secretary is expected.
7. DIVERTING
YOUNG PEOPLE
FROM ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR
7.1 The SLCNG's remit is primarily one that
relates more to enforcement than prevention. However, the Group
recognises the importance of prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation
being applied in conjunction in order that ASB is dealt with effectively
in the long term. Government commitment to prevention and rehabilitation
is welcomed, however, there remains a dearth of initiatives to
help dysfunctional families deal with their disruptive behaviour.
The Dundee Families Project, remains almost the only example of
good practice in this area and it is the Group's view that Government
needs to have a more direct involvement in the funding of such
projects.
7.2 Members of the SLCNG report that Social
Services Departments involvement in the CDRPs is patchy and its
commitment to tackling ASB inconsistent. The Group would like
to see better working relationships between social landlords,
Youth Offending Teams, Drug Action Teams and Social Services,
in particular, with a clearer role for social landlords in the
governance process.
8. DISPARITIES
IN ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR ACTIVITY
AND THE
USE OF
POWERS TO
COMBAT IT
8.1. The SLCNG feels it has done much over
the past few years to help spread good practice on tackling ASB
across the social rented sector.
8.2 There is no doubt that the work of the
Anti-social Behaviour Unit and particularly the role of the Ambassadors,
will help speed up the process. Similarly, the development by
the Audit Commission of their Key Lines of Enquiry, with a particular
emphasis on tackling anti-social behaviour, will help set the
standard that our communities will expect, through the Housing
Inspection process.
8.3 The Group is working hard with member
organisations to ensure that they comply with the 30 December
2004 deadline to produce Policies and Procedures to deal with
ASB, but the lack of standardised performance indictors will prevent
a truly objective assessment being made of the effectiveness of
individual social landlords.
8.4 The cost of taking legal action to deal
with ASB has resulted in many myths springing up. Obtaining an
anti-social behaviour order, for instance, should not be inordinately
expensive. Nevertheless many smaller registered social landlords
often lack the practical and financial resources to take action.
Given the overall impact on the local community, it could be argued
that the cost associated with social landlords taking enforcement
action should be borne by the community as a whole and not just
the rent payers.
9. RESPONSIBILITIES
OF THE
PRIVATE SECTOR
FOR TACKLING
ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR
9.1 Although the Housing Bill makes provision
for the licensing of private sector landlords with the aim of
improving the management of the private rented stock, the Group
feels that the provisions are far too bureaucratic and narrow
in their scope to ensure that such landlords effectively deal
with anti-social behaviour. Principally, the emphasis for selective
licensing needs to be shifted away from "low housing demand"
and focussed more on the level of ASB associated with the neighbourhood.
In that way, a better co-ordinated approach to dealing with neighbourhood
problems should be implemented.
10. OTHER ISSUES
10.1 ASBOs and Court Jurisdiction: During
the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill the SLCNG lobbied for
the power to grant ASBOs in the County Court or the Magistrates
Court. It is the Group's view that the restriction of the anti-social
behaviour order to the Magistrates Court has negated the essentially
civil nature of the injunctive process. The Group feels that ASBOs
should be available as a stand alone order in the County Court.
10.2 ALMO powers: It is the Group's view
that ALMOs should have the authority to apply to the Courts for
ASBOs. Operationally, ALMOs need to respond quickly to customers.
ALMOs will be expected to play their part in the CDRP and they
will need to act promptly to deal with ASB when it arises.
11. SUMMARY
11.1 The SLCNG welcomes the advances that
have been made in tackling ASB, which have been facilitated by
the legislation, Government initiatives and the profile which
the Government has adopted in tackling the problem. The Group
does not feel that there is currently a need for additional major
powers for social landlords to tackle ASB. Nevertheless, the Group
will continue to lobby for additional powers if it feels the need
to do so. There is clearly a need for landlords to adopt good
practice and use the tools currently available for them.
12 September 2004
| 
