7. Memorandum submitted by The Chartered
Institute of Housing
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH)
is the only professional body for individuals working in housing.
Its primary aim is to maximise the contribution that housing professionals
make to the well being of communities. Membership status is dependent
on completion of a professional qualification and a track record
of professional achievement.
1.2 CIH has over 18,000 individual members
working for local authorities, housing associations, Government
bodies, educational establishments and the private sector. Many
of our members are engaged in day-to-day work in tackling anti-social
behaviour (ASB).
1.3 In order to assist our members carry
out this vital work we are engaged in a number of activities which
includes: publication of good practice material and dedicated
training courses, conferences and events.
1.4 The role of the CIH policy unit is to
promote more effective housing policy through work with: Government
ministers and their officials; Members of Parliament; and other
influential policy makers. On this issue CIH has developed a close
working relationship with the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance
Group.
2. THE EFFECTIVENESS
AND PROPORTIONALITY
OF CURRENT
POWERS
2.1 Anti-social behaviour began to emerge
as an issue of public concern in the early 1990s and quickly became
a major concern of tenants who were critical of the lacklustre
response of many authorities/landlords to deal with it. Acting
on this criticism a number of housing organisations did pioneering
work but were critical of their lack of effective powers to tackle
it.
2.2 In fact even prior to 1990 local authorities
had a considerable number of (mainly environmental health) powers
to deal with certain types of nuisance. The issue was not the
number of powers but their scope, effectiveness and practicality.
Many pioneering landlords "rediscovered" and made creative
use of longstanding powers but considered that further powers
were needed.
3. THE CAUSES
AND EFFECTS
OF ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR
3.1 The causes of anti-social behaviour
are complex. The change in the use of publicly funded housing
from general needs to an almost exclusively social welfare role
has probably contributed towards making this an issue for social
landlords. Higher concentrations of people on low incomes and
other social problems have been accompanied by increased challenges
in housing management.
3.2 These social changes took place at the
time of increased tenant security which limited landlord's effective
sanctions.
3.3 Despite these trends it is important
to recognise that anti-social behaviour is not exclusively confined
to the social rented sector and is an issue of equal concern to
owner occupiers. However, given the higher concentrations of deprivation
in the social sector it is arguable that the effects of ASB have
a disproportionately higher impact on the quality of life of social
sector residents.
4. EFFECTIVENESS
AND PROPORTIONALITY
OF CURRENT
POWERS
4.1 The development of powers to deal with
ASB has been largely reactive and ad hoc. Government frustration
that ASB continues to be a major concern has previously resulted
in either: a further grant of powers; or criticism of organisations
that use these new powers infrequently (or not at all).
4.2 A more effective approach would have
been to focus on the reasons for the failure of poorer performing
landlord's reluctance to use the range of existing powers. There
now seems to be a consensus developing that landlords have now
a sufficient barrage of powers and attention should now be focused
on barriers to their use and to disseminate best practice in tackling
ASB of which the use of enforcement powers is only a small part.
4.3 The development of new powers to restrain
behaviour rather than evict tenants is clearly a positive development
and has given landlords greater flexibility to deal with the wide
range of disruptive behaviours which constitute ASB. A key advantage
of injunctive powers is that they can be applied in conjunction
with support programmes designed to tackle the causes of the offending
behaviour.
4.4 Taking some of the current powers in
turn:
(i) Possession: Traditionally, possession
action was the only tool social landlords had to tackle ASB. As
an all or nothing power its effectiveness was limited. Difficulties
arise in its use for low level but persistent ASB especially since
possession can only be granted if it is reasonable. A landlord
also loses the ability to control an individual once evicted therefore
many landlords favour injunctive powers. Nevertheless it remains
an important power, for example, to separate groups of problem
households.
(ii) Demotion: This is a new power but may
prove to be an effective deterrent whilst introducing a degree
of progressiveness to the possession process which it has previously
lacked.
(iii) Housing Act 1996 Injunctions: These
gave local authorities the ability to restrain behaviour, (underpinned
by the power of arrest) of any residents in their property without
the power being confined to the terms of the tenancy agreement
to the tenants (eg other occupiers). The Anti-social Behaviour
Act 2003 extended these powers registered social landlords.
(iv) Anti-social Behaviour Orders:
(1) These are highly flexible and effective
forms of injunction which are tenure neutral (not restricted to
social housing). However, obtaining them may require the coordination
of several agencies and their effectiveness depends on swift action
by the CPS following a breach.
(2) The greater degree of collaboration between
agencies required by ASBOs and the Crime and Disorder Act has
arguably had as an important impact as the power itself. Professional
practice gained in obtaining ASBOs has led to the development
of intermediate non-legal initiatives such as Acceptable Behaviour
Contracts (ABCs). ABCs are cheap and simple to administer and
allow for a more incremental and proportionate approach.
(v) Use of powers generally: ASBOs or other
injunctive powers may be all that is required in certain cases,
however, in others they may do little more than provide immediate
relief to the victim if the underlying causes of the problem are
not treated. All powers should be seen as part of a range of options
available which may include support and rehabilitation packages
designed to tackle the offending behaviour. A considerable degree
of professional skill and judgement may be required to select
the right programme in each case. A mechanistic approach is unlikely
to prove effective.
5. ENFORCEMENT
AND CO
-ORDINATION:
5.1 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships
(CDRPs) have helped co-ordinate activity at the local level and
this has improved with the inclusion of Registered Social Landlords.
However, performance in each area remains patchy. Effectiveness
requires commitment to the process (as opposed to being a mere
signatory) of all key stakeholders including the police and local
authority social services and education departments.
5.2 Our members have voiced concerns about
clear lines of responsibility in some areas. This problem is most
likely to emerge in authorities who have transferred their housing
stock (LSVT) where there is a danger that the landlord and the
authority take the view that the prime responsibility for tackling
anti-social behaviour rests with the other agency. Best practice
suggests that the body that has developed the expertise should
provide the lead but they should be fully supported by their partner
where they lack the power or capacity to carry out a particular
function.
5.3 Local authorities continue to be the
sole possessors of a range of environmental powers. There may
also be capacity issues for smaller landlords who do not have
the ability to set up specialist legal/ASB teams. The cost of
legal action is also a significant barrier for smaller landlords
since they cannot take advantage of the economies of scale enjoyed
by larger landlords who also benefit from the experience of handling
a large number of cases. These problems can be exacerbated in
rural areas where there is a smaller pool of experienced practitioners
and of specialist legal services.
5.4 There is the confusion about the status
of local Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) in particular
whether they can exercise the full range of local authority powers.
There is also a danger unclear lines of responsibility will lead
to similar problems as in LSVT areas undermining the effectiveness
of local action.
5.5 A number of our members have expressed
their frustration 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. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that this may be a greater problem in rural
areas. Similar standards of service across the country are likely
to be difficult to achieve whilst these inconsistencies continue.
5.6 Exchange of information is crucial to
success and its importance has been highlighted in various reports
and guidance. However, exchange of information continues to be
a problem in some areas when not all parties are willing to co-operate
to the extent necessary for maximum effectiveness. Myths and misconceptions
about the data protection legislation can be used as an excuse
for inaction, but more often it is merely a play safe response
to a lack of knowledge about the rules. The Information Commissioner
has produced guidance on this issue but this is not widely known.
The Bichard Inquiry makes it clear that better guidance is needed
on information sharing generally. Further, the power to exchange
information exists under the Crime and Disorder Act but a power
to do something does not necessarily equate to a commitment to
use it productively.
5.7 As stated above it is important to recognise
that the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour do not exclusively
live in rented housing. Prior to the Housing Bill 2003 receiving
royal assent there will still be only a limited range of powers
to deal with occupiers of private housing. In particular some
social landlords have experienced problems with occupiers in properties
which have been sold under the right to buy.
5.8 New powers contained in the Housing
Bill to suspend right to buy applications and for the selective
licensing of privately rented accommodation will help but by no
means fully redress the disparity of powers between the tenures.
Suggestions for further work to tackle anti-social behaviour in
the owner occupied and privately rented sectors were made in the
Social Exclusion Unit's report of Policy Action Team 8 but we
are unaware of any further developments.
6. THE IMPACT
OF GOVERNMENT
INITIATIVES:
6.1 There are positive signs that the Government's
approach is beginning to move away from a fixation with powers
towards a more strategic approach which gives greater emphasis
to the sharing of best practice and developing professional skills.
The "Together" programme is a good example of this.
CIH would endorse this approach as more likely to produce results
with the as yet poorer performers.
6.2 Neighbourhood Wardens have proved to
be both successful and popular with landlords and tenants alike.
However, CIH is concerned that so far funding is not available
on a long-term basis.
7. PREVENTION
AND SUPPORT
7.1 Enforcement on its own in many cases
will prove insufficient to prevent reoccurrence of the offending
behaviour unless it is accompanied by a support package designed
tackle the causes. CIH recognises the importance of prevention
and rehabilitation in the eradication of offending behaviour in
the long term rather than the ASB merely being temporarily displaced
elsewhere.
7.2 However at present there remains a dearth
of good practice examples. The Dundee Families Project remained
almost the only one. The project costs around £350,000 a
year to run but is said to save over £450,000 in legal costs.
More recently Rochdale Council and Shelter have piloted an initiative
whereby those who are made homeless through ASB are given support
for up to a year if they abide by the terms of an "acceptable
behaviour contract". From the results so far, the signs are
extremely encouraging. However, the development of effective strategies
to tackle ASB would no doubt benefit from a wider range of good
practice examples.
7.3 Performance in prevention and support
could no doubt be improved with the development of better working
relationships between social landlords, Youth Offending Teams,
Drug Action Teams and Social Services.
14 September 2004
| 
