Got something to say? Then say it

Tragic consequences can result when agencies fail to share information on an individual's background, as the Soham murder case has made distressingly clear. The Bichard inquiry into the handling of information in the lead-up to the Soham murders concluded that: "Better guidance is needed on the collection, retention, deletion, use and sharing of information, so that police officers, social workers and other professionals can feel more confident in using the information."

When housing and partner agencies don't keep each other informed, the consequences may be less horrifying but they are also serious, as Croydon Churches found to its cost (HT 4 June, page 17).

A case study that came up during a recent roadshow that the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group organised for Gloucestershire Housing Association also demonstrated the point.

Gloucestershire is proactive in tackling antisocial behaviour and has very strong links with partner agencies. But it encountered particular problems when it accepted the nomination of a tenant who was given accommodation that was totally inappropriate. Had information, known to other agencies, been shared this could have been avoided.

As it was, there was a long and expensive pursuit of a man who persistently caused nuisance – and eventually set fire to his flat. Had his history been shared, the man could have been appropriately housed, had support provided and thousands of pounds would have been saved.

Surely now is the time to stop, review and restate our attitude to the use of information held by our partner agencies to prevent nuisance and antisocial behaviour. When properly used it can ensure appropriate lettings are set up and the support given that's necessary to meet our customers' needs and safeguard others.

Crucially, staff in organisations must be clear about the Data Protection Act and use it to exchange, not sit on, important information.

In fact, staff must also be made more aware of existing protocols for inter-agency knowledge sharing, because there is still much ignorance about what can and can't be shared.

This may imply delays – and particularly affect how long it takes to let empty properties – but the wider lessons from Bichard make it imperative that we do not chase targets in one area at the expense of total failure in another.

The Gloucestershire case is but one example of an inappropriate letting that could, and should have been avoided. For social landlords to avoid more such errors in the future, they need to act now.