2nd opinion: Because we want to

Mediation is a voluntary process. This is one of its fundamental principles: the disputants must want to solve the conflict. If any agreement between disputing parties is to last, they must have control over its construction and content. We all recognise that achieving change in our own behaviour can be difficult – giving up smoking, for example – but change is even more difficult when we are forced to make it.

But by sticking to this crucial element of mediation, many potential cases are not taken on, or close prematurely because of the withdrawal of one or more parties. When this pattern begins to emerge, the mediation service is often labelled as failing, or as being of little use. When we started to experience this pattern, the trend we discovered was exemplified in one housing office where we could demonstrate how when one particular worker moved on, the referrals stopped literally overnight.

That is why we now provide free annual training to all front-line housing workers in those agencies that provide us with core operational funding. It's designed to raise awareness of our service, point out the benefits of using it for housing staff and enable them to point out the benefits for their tenants. Basically, it teaches people how to sell the idea of mediation as an attractive option to disputants. After all, how can you volunteer for something when you have no idea about the benefits that it has to offer you?

Too often in my profession, we preach to the converted. Mediation practitioners are very good at enthusing about the benefits of using mediation as a housing management tool, and this chorus is increasingly echoed by a growing number of housing professionals who support our work. But the large majority of the population still only associate remedies for antisocial behaviour with fines, injunctions, ASBOs and eviction.

So I was delighted, therefore, to be asked a few weeks ago to present a mediation workshop at the annual conference of the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group. The conference agenda ranged from the legal question marks arising from new laws to working examples of preventative measures and supportive frameworks for tenants.

I have often asked in this magazine if you use your local mediation service. But now I'd like to ask if do you do so because you want to, or because you are told to?

The SLCNG conference introduced
me to more than 200 professionals, representing almost 3 million tenancies, who do want to explore solutions such as mediation – they have, if you will, voluntarily agreed to participate with the mediation process. Of those attending my workshop, about two-thirds had a local mediation service, but only roughly half used that service on a regular basis – a sure sign that something, somewhere, is wrong.

There are numerous options to pick from when tackling nuisance and antisocial behaviour. But you can only pick from what is available and what you know about. Tenants rarely choose mediation without any encouragement, because they have simply never found out about what it is and what it can do. If your organisation doesn't belong to a group such as the SLCNG, then your chances of having a full range of options will be reduced. And if you don't voluntarily choose to increase your use of mediation, your tenants will never have the choice to use a service that can resolve up to 80% of neighbour disputes.