RSLs are trigger-happy about pressing nuisance charges and rarely even-handed

Over the last few years, antisocial behaviour – a real if not growing problem in inner city and rural areas – has crept up the government’s agenda. A good example is the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003, which ensures that consideration is given to victims of antisocial behaviour.

The act also gives registered social landlords extended powers to take possession of tenancies and to apply for antisocial behaviour orders. But are RSLs really the best-placed agencies to punish alleged perpetrators?

I am a solicitor who defends people – mostly tenants of local authorities and housing associations – who are accused of being antisocial. I also advise victims of antisocial behaviour, so I know how devastating bad behaviour can be. But although I may be a lone voice in saying this, I believe there is a serious danger that RSLs are increasingly being antisocial themselves in the way they respond to complaints of bad behaviour.

For example, housing officers, managers and their legal advisers often do not give an alleged perpetrator an opportunity to challenge allegations before court action is taken. In housing nuisance cases, alleged perpetrators sometimes have interim injunctions served on them with powers of arrests on the basis of one serious allegation – and without being given a chance to explain themselves to the housing officers at the local housing office. In some cases, one wonders why, if the allegations are so serious, the police were not called at the time and the matter dealt with by them rather than the RSL.

It sometimes crosses my mind that housing officers and managers are a soft target for people who complain against their neighbours: they must react to a complaint or risk becoming the subject of a complaint themselves for not acting.

The sad fact is that all too often, people who are accused of nuisance are single mothers or people suffering from mental health problems. Time and again I find that social landlords fail to take account of the views of other tenants in the area apart from those of the complainant, or to check relevant medical evidence from GPs, psychiatrists or social workers.

Of course, I realise that the people I see are not all angels and that the allegations made against them may not be all unfounded. But equally, some accusers may hold grudges, be prejudiced or have personality clashes with their neighbours – and know how to play the system.

All too often, no thought is given to the effect of court proceedings on the accused person. Imagine the impact of a noise nuisance allegation on a single mother looking after her young children or a person suffering from an identifiable medical disability, for instance. Depression can result, or pre-existing mental health problems may be exacerbated.

Most importantly, legal action can destroy long-term relationships between tenant and landlord – after all, a housing officer who gives evidence against a tenant may still have to collect rent from them. But tenants who have been put through the legal grinder can become suspicious of all contact with a housing officer. This is no way to build the respectful and responsible communities the government’s antisocial behaviour policy is meant to aim for.

Social landlords should foster good relations with their tenants. Those that have a zero-tolerance policy towards antisocial behaviour may say they’re doing this, but I respectfully and responsibly disagree. They are too close to their clients and dealing with bad behaviour sours the relationship; the police are the best people for that sort of job.