Similarly, there are no hard and fast rules on how to deal with trouble on estates, neighbourhood nuisance or anti-social behaviour.
The debate over how best to tackle the problem has never been hotter, as the powers afforded to landlords are used with ever-increasing regularity and more punitive ones introduced.
Indeed, the scale of debate is reflected in the growing membership of the nationwide Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, which now boasts more than 130 members.
Mixed messages lately eminating from the Home Office have served only to confuse the issue of how hard councils ought to come down on the so-called "neighbour from hell".
Never has the debate been more polarized than in the east Midlands.
In Leicester, the council recently held a six month pilot scheme on four "difficult" estates which proved so successful it was implemented city-wide in April.
A unique partnership was developed with a mediation service in an attempt to stop what contracts manager Andy Keeling calls "fire-fighting" - reactive measures which only deal with neighbour nuisance once it has descended into conflict or worse.
Keeling is adamant about the approach. "We don't, nor do we want, nor do we consider it appropriate to immediately threaten people with ASBOs or eviction," he says.
Instead, a deal was struck with Leicestershire Mediation Service, an independent charity which approached the council with a proposal to develop a first stage assessment of complaints.
In the past, tenants with moans about nuisance neighbours were not aware of the options available to them or the council - resulting in the usual scenario of the council being blamed for "refusing to do anything".
Now, intervention at the earliest possible time provides an opportunity for cases to be assessed, on behalf of the council, by the mediation service's army of community volunteers.
In doing this the council also attempts to avoid what Keeling describes as a "nanny state philosophy" steering tenants through a system. Rather, it is about "managing their expectations" and "making people see what is realistic and what isn't."
He says: "Tenants are now developing listening and communications skills so they can resolve disputes themselves without having to come to the housing department.
"One of the huge undertakings with implementing this sort of service is training staff and tenant representatives as well. It is a very new and innovative way of dealing with the first stages of anti-social behaviour."
The more authoritarian approach comes if all that fails, and according to Keeling, that shouldn't be too often. Keeling is keen to point out that Leicester should not be seen as a "soft option" and that severe examples of crime or nuisance behaviour is treated seriously.
Nevertheless, he feels it is unrealistic and unfair to threaten eviction in every instance. "We are dealing with peoples' homes, and it is not right to be quite so gung-ho about these things."
Last year the council had four evictions and enforced six injunctions. Tellingly, this left 650 cases of complaints of forms of anti-social behaviour which were not deemed to be appropriate for punitive action.
Furthermore, an average 184 hours per housing officer per year are spent dealing with complaints of anti-social behaviour. Now a large chunk of this is filtered through the assessment and mediation workers, freeing up much-needed time and energy.
"We wanted to come up with an anti-social behaviour service that places its heart the idea of early intervention and the quicker we intervene the better," Keeling explains. "And feedback from the neighbourhoods and the neighbourhood offices has been very positive."
Travel 25 miles up the M1, however, and there is a remarkably different story to tell.
A fortnight ago local newspapers went to town over "neighbour from hell" Peter Cutts, after he had been banned from walking down a Nottingham street for the next two years.
Judges had granted the council an exclusion order preventing the 43-year-old visiting his street because he had broken an earlier injunction.
Nottingham county court heard how he had headbutted two neighbours and terrorised others with racist and threatening behaviour, including threats to kill.
To make sure he had not further cause to stroll down his own street, Cutts was served with a possession notice as well as the exclusion order. He won't be able to do much strolling for the next 12 months anyway: he was detained for a year at her majesty's pleasure.
Nottingham city council proudly recalls the case as a good result. When it comes to anti-social behaviour, assistant director of housing Peter Jackson has a simple philosophy. "Hit them with a number of weapons at the same time."
In fact, when councils started lobbying the government for the introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, Nottingham was in the vanguard. "We felt there was a tool missing from the toolbox," Jackson says. "We knew there were problems that people had in getting injunctions in private sector accommodation."
Although an effective method of curbing the inappropriate behaviour of tenants, and introduced more than two years ago, injunctions are are still rarely used across the country.
Just under two-thirds of councils which took part in a recent study by Sheffield Hallam University said they were prepared to use them "at least sometimes", although they proved popular with 93 per cent of the metropolitan authorities surveyed.
Nottingham is one of them. "For six, seven, eight years we have been responding to anti-social behaviour on council estates by using powers within the tenancy agreements and the Housing Act 1996 and taking other lines of action than repossessions," Jackson says.
An analysis of the legal work carried out by Nottingham over the past six months is under way, but early indications are that repossessions are being outnumbered by injunctions by almost five to one.
The council is also whittling down a shortlist of potential candidates for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. "It's trying to control their behaviour. That is also one potential for ASBOs, trying to contain the problem without people losing their homes," he adds.
These "weapons" are backed up with a series of initiatives for tenants themselves, such as victim support services and personal alarms for people who are being racially victimised.
And key to a successful crackdown on anti-social behaviour is the need for authorities to liase with other bodies, including social services, police, youth services, and probation workers, Jackson adds.
"It means getting the agencies to agree an action plan on what needs to be done, putting their thoughts together and targetting resources."
It may be chalk to Leicester's cheese, but Jackson insists this is also an approach which gets results.
Reaction and feedback from the street has been "very positive" of the council's hardline stance, he says. But he denies that reactive measures like possessions, injunctions and Anti-Social Behaviour Orders are ineffective in the long term.
"I don't think it is firefighting. We are actually looking at issues that give rise to anti-social behaviour in the first place," he says.
"We are trying to create a climate where people understand that if they are council tenants and have commited anti-social behavour they might actually be evicted.
"I really don't see it as firefighting. We are making some real headway on getting to grips with crime."
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet