"Of course I was frightened," he recalls, "but I had to stay calm. I told him I didn't want any hassle and that he didn't want a visit from the police. Luckily, he understood my warning."
While not all instances are as extreme, social landlords are used to dealing with the problem of nuisance neighbours every day. "Front-line staff are the unsung heroes in the fight against antisocial behaviour," says George Reed, assistant housing manager at Cheviot Housing Association. "They face an incredibly difficult task. Tenants see housing officers as a second police force – and of course we're not. They think that we have more power than we do."
Landlords' lack of power to effectively fight antisocial behaviour has long been a headache for the government and social housing X X providers. Newspaper pages are filled with stories about teen thugs and gangs roaming estates, provoking the government into declaring war on antisocial behaviour. But the staff that have to fight this war – housing managers and officers – are already exhausted, worn down from having to fight both the problem itself and the system that is supposed to help them combat it.
Tackling Antisocial Tenants, a consultation paper launched by secretary of state for local government Stephen Byers in April, proposes giving landlords sweeping powers to evict unruly tenants. The proposals come alongside changes in the police reform bill that will allow housing associations to apply for "antisocial behaviour orders" (ASBOs). At the moment this power is only granted to local authorities and the police. Social landlords have until July to respond to the consultation paper.
And this month the government also backed a controversial private members bill tabled by former social security minister Frank Field that proposes docking housing benefit from families of unruly children.
Fighting frustration
ASBOs were intended to be a powerful new weapon with which local authorities could fight teen crime, but in practice they are complex and expensive. Fewer than 500 orders have been imposed, they cost an average of £5360, take 66 working days to obtain and almost six out of 10 cases involve three or more court hearings. One case in Greater Manchester cost almost £190,000.
Council housing departments estimate the general cost of legal action on antisocial behaviour, including measures other than ASBOs (see right), to be around £10,000 a case, according to Judy Nixon, a social policy expert at Sheffield Hallam University's Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research. But costs vary according to the size of housing stock and local circumstances – for example, Salford's housing department estimates that antisocial behaviour costs it £2m a year.
The uncertain nature of legal action makes costs hard to predict – there is no guarantee the judge will agree with the action, nothing to stop intimidated witnesses pulling out of a hearing and no idea how long the case will last.
"It can cost £2500 to £3000 to take on external solicitors just to draw up a case," says Reed. "The process is expensive, and if tenants walk away before the court appearance then you've spent the money for nothing."
Even worse than the financial costs of tackling antisocial behaviour is the burden it places on staff. The long, tiring, and often futile legal process takes a massive emotional toll. The anonymous former housing officer testifies to feeling helpless. "In one case we tried to get possession on a household known for drug abuse," he says. "We spent £6000 and it took months to get to court. By that time the offending tenant had wised up and kept out of trouble for a few months – so the court gave us a suspended possession order.
"When you hear you haven't got what you wanted, you feel exhausted, mentally drained. You're tired anyway because of all the cross-examination and then you think – what's the point? The courts just don't back us up."
Reed seconds this feeling: "Tenants want antisocial neighbours dealt with immediately, but it takes time to build up a case and it's up to the judge if he grants possession. It's demoralising when we're powerless to do anything," says Reed.
You feel exhausted, mentally drained. You’retired from of all the cross-examination and then you just think – what’s the point?
This sense of futility undermines staff morale; and as morale plummets, costs rise. Making Crime Our Business, a report published by the Housing Corporation in 2000, states that antisocial behaviour "should be regarded as a business issue" because of the costs it imposed on landlords.
A case in March involving Medina Housing Association on the Isle of Wight demonstrates this. Medina applied to have tenant Andrew Connolly jailed for 42 days after he breached a injunction. The case cost £7000 and took up more than 100 hours of staff time – and the tenant was released after 14 days.
"The frustration is immense," says head of housing Angus MacDonald. MacDonald says that between July 2001 and April this year, Medina, which owns around 3000 properties, spent £25,500 on legal action, CCTV and professional witnesses – and this figure does not even take into account staff time. MacDonald is indignant: "There's such a high demand for housing and we could be using this money to upgrade people's homes."
In late March, Andrew Turner, Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, wrote to home secretary David Blunkett to voice his "feelings of total let-down" after hearing of the Medina case. Like many, Turner feels that while the Home Office favours more punitive action, the courts are not backing it up.
Finding solutions
Birmingham-based private company Antisocial Behaviour Operations (which also goes by the initials ASBO) is proof that housing departments are crying out for help in dealing with antisocial incidents. The company gathers evidence on behalf of councils and housing associations. "Most housing officers prioritise rent arrears – they don't have skills or the time to deal with antisocial tenants," says founder Claire Castle.
She describes the work as painstaking. "It can take hours and hours over eight to nine months, drafting and redrafting witness statements and explaining legal jargon to witnesses, but you have to remain sympathetic. At times it's like being a counsellor."
Tired of existing legal options, some local authorities are pioneering their own solutions. Nottingham's Mediation Service uses volunteer mediators to find mutual agreements to neighbour disputes. Of the 70 disputes that arise each year, two-thirds reach a successful conclusion.
Social landlords are also teaming up with other agencies to fight antisocial behaviour. Islington council in London is trialling simple and cheap "acceptable behaviour contracts" (ABCs) which bind youngsters to certain rules agreed between their families, police and housing officer. If breached, their families could face eviction. Unlike ASBOs, which must be obtained from a magistrates court, an ABC can be drawn up in minutes. Of an initial 62 ABCs issued, only three have been breached.
"Partnership working between housing associations, the police, local authorities and others is essential," says Helen Williams, policy officer at the National Housing Federation. "Agencies need to work together to agree enforcement action, support for those at risk and to intervene to get those who cause problems to address their behaviour."
The DTLR consultation on dealing with antisocial tenants has been welcomed and may yet lead to new and innovative practices. So far however, the costly and gimmicky initiatives Whitehall is churning out have left those on the front line unimpressed.
"The frustrating thing is that you hear about the new policies and legislation to deal with antisocial behaviour," says Reed, "but at the end of day implementing it is simply not as easy as it sounds. The workload is huge and there's a lot of disappointment. But we have to get on with it – someone has to."
Footing the bill – typical costs of antisocial behaviour to RSLs
- Miscellaneous legal advice (excluding court action) £150-£1000 per case
- External mediator for intervening in disputes: £300
- Housing officer involvement in mediation: £600
- Legal advice on possession: £500
- Possession order court case: £3000-£7000
- Application for injunction: £1500
- Complex antisocial case involving repeated breaching of injunctions: £14,000
- Abandoned car staff time £5000
- Physical removal of cars £2000
- Miscellaneous legal advice £150-£1000
- CCTV installation £35,000
- CCTV equipment hire and covert professional witness surveillance £1500
- ASBO (local authorities/police only) £5000-£6000
Fighting antisocial behaviour – the options:
Possession:traditional remedy for serious breaches of tenancy conditions. Although successful possession results in the offending tenants leaving the area, the problem is merely displaced. An expensive option which can take many months. Injunctions: to stop tenants breaching tenancy agreements or causing nuisance. A useful first step in cases which are not serious enough to warrant possession but they are expensive and it takes time to prepare a legal case. A nuisance tenant may adhere to the terms of an injunction, but if they remain in the area this can be a less than satisfactory solution for neighbours. Antisocial behaviour orders:
local authorities and chief police officers can apply to a magistrates’ court for a banning order. The case involves civil proceedings where hearsay is acceptable evidence. A breach of an order is a criminal offence punishable by a five-year sentence. These are generally regarded as a failure by most housing practitioners – notoriously complex and costing up to £6000 a time, the courts are increasingly mindful of human rights and often refuse to grant orders. Only available to local authorities and police, but there are proposals to allow RSLs to apply for ASBOs. Acceptable behaviour contracts:
written agreements for 10 to 18 year olds not to carry out certain acts which, if flouted, can lead to eviction for their families. No legal obligation for youngsters to stick to the rules but contracts are usually enough of a threat to prevent further antisocial behaviour. Widely praised as a cheaper and quicker alternative to ASBOs. Mediation:
the involvement of volunteer or specialist mediation experts to avoid further action. Seen as a sensible, cost-effective solution – if the dispute can be resolved in a few meetings – but housing officers must win the cooperation of both parties, which is not always easy. Stricter clauses in tenancy agreements:
some landlords include “nuisance clauses” in agreements which, if breached, can lead to eviction. A good preventative method which makes clear that unacceptable behaviour will not be tolerated and sends a positive message to the community – but it is likely to be ignored by hardened nuisance neighbours and eviction only moves the problem elsewhere. Introductory or “starter” tenancies:
instead of granting a secure tenancy, this enables landlords to take action quickly on nuisance neighbours. As with stricter clauses (see above) this is prevention rather than cure but has the same downsides.
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet