Anti-Social Behaviour Injunctions

Although the government is planning to abolish the s153 housing injunctions that were introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, there is no need to stop using these remedies for dealing with a wide range of ASB activity. It could be some time before the proposals turn into something more concrete, and finally turn into legislation and enacted. Therefore, if you are having to deal with cases of anti-social behaviour that do not warrant outright eviction - and some would argue that this is not an effective remedy as it only moves the problem elsewhere - then the use of injunctions can be very useful. And post-Pinnock, many social landlords are looking towards other remedies as possession may not be deemed as being proportionate. 

The aim of an injunction is to try to change the offending behaviour rather than to punish the perpretator. Injunctions can be quick to obtain and can be less expensive than using possession. The threat of an unlimited fine and/or up to two years imprisonment for contempt of court can often be successful in stopping the ASB. Some social landlords use this remedy whilst they are waiting for possession cases to be heard in order to prevent a continuation of the behaviour or the intimidation of witnesses. Injunctions can include exclusion orders and the power of arrest for the most serious cases, but injunctions can also be used to deal with those lower-level 'nuisance' cases which can sometimes be very difficult to address. The new government proposals for anti-social behaviour include the use of a new injunction to replace the existing ones, so it has been recognised that these legal tools can be very useful. 

For more information on the use of injunctions for tackling anti-social behaviour, please contact me on 07986 246406 or at skills@learning4housing.co.uk

David Wardle

New Anti-Social Behaviour Tools

Criticisms of ASBOs have been made from various quarters. Seen as one of the cornerstones of Tony Blair's 'Respect Agenda', it is no wonder that the Coalition government is now seeking to replace them. Complaints that they have become a 'badge of honour', that they are frequently breached, or that they criminalise young people, have all had some validity, but whether this warrants their abolition is a matter for judgement and personal opinion. Or perhaps political opinion. The government has now announced its proposals for replacing the ASBO, and at first glance, there is not too much difference. The new Criminal Behaviour Order will be issued by a court after conviction and would ban individuals from certain places and activities. Crime prevention injunctions could lead to imprisonment or a fine for adults, and curfews and detention for under 18s. 

There are clearly different views on this issue, one being that as the numbers of police officers is predicted to decline in coming years, social landlords will be forced into playing a more direct role in controlling the anti-social and criminal behaviour of some of their tenants. How will this impact on the activities of front-line housing officers, who also may have to adopt a softer and more supportive role, due to the cuts in Supporting People budgets. Time will tell no doubt.

Another view is that there are already enough legal (and non-legal) tools available to social landlords to deal with anti-social behaviour, such as possession, demotion, injunctions, ASBOs, CRASBOs, closure orders, parenting orders, dispersal orders...I could go on. Some have argued that it is not the lack of tools that is the problem, but the skills and knowledge to be able to use them, and to use the appropriate tool in the right situation.

Anyway, the proposals are out for consultation and no doubt we will see some changes. Let's hope that there will be a positive and coordinated approach to dealing with a problem which blights many people's lives in many parts of the country and across different tenures.

The full consultation document can be found at:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-2010-antisocial-behaviour/

Social Housing and the Localism Bill

The Localism Bill has now been published and is currently out for a short consultation period. There are several proposals contained in the Bill, but I just wanted to concentrate on those which impact on social housing. There have been many comments concerning the various rights and the wrongs of the government's plans, but the ones that I have read seem to highlight the negative aspects of the plans. The key changes that are being proposed in the Bill are:

• Allowing housing associations to charge a rent of up to 80% of the market rate for their area. This, it is argued, will generate additional resources which will provide more building of new homes. This is being described as an 'affordable' rent, even though in some areas where private sector rents are relatively high, this is unlikely to be the case. In other areas where rents are low, the plan will be a non-starter as social rents are likely to be higher. Even in areas where additional cash will be generated, the number of extra new homes (that can also be let at this 'affordable' level) will be low. The Housing Minister has said that the new affordable rent model falls within the broad definition of social housing, but this does seem to me to be more akin to private renting by a private landlord. Of course there is nothing wrong with that, but let's make sure that we are not using incorrect terminology to descibe something.
• Another proposal in the Bill is to permit councils and housing associations to let their new tenancies for a fixed term of a minimum of two years. This is the so-called 'flexible' tenancy. I was recently reading a blog in The Guardian on this subject, where a posting from a council tenant summed up the issue very clearly.              It read as follows:

"I am lucky to be able to live in council housing with my family and we have done so for a number of years. Neither I nor my ex earn enough to get a mortgage (despite working for that fabulously paid area: the public sector), nor do we earn sufficient to make a move to the private sector without claiming housing benefit. As it is we have only ever had to claim Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit (or Working Families Credits prior to that) as so many families better off than ourselves do.
The benefits have been immeasurable for the family: our son has had a stable upbringing, he is now in further education with his sights set on university. He has a strong network of friends and family. We have been able to remain in our socially useful jobs and I have put down some roots for the first time in my life. Our neighbours (composed of council and ex-council stock occupants) have also been remarkably stable so we do know most people on our street. This would not be possible if we had all had to move on after a few years. Our street is not what people would think of as typical of social housing; our local council put a lot of effort into maintaining the stock and it is appreciated.
I fear that many people do not appreciate stability sufficiently: I had moved house so often that even now, with 15 years council tenancy under my belt in one property I average moving house once every 2 years of my life. It's extremely stressful when you are single and more so when you are a child or have a child.
I expect to move later when I no longer require a 2 bed semi for myself: but it won't be to my own property as that is out of the question. I certainly don't feel that I am undeserving of this housing; I feel that there should be increased social housing so that people do not feel that owning your own property is essential with all the stress it can bring."

I don't think that there is a need for further comment here...

The article and discussion can be found at:   http://bit.ly/eIscj0

• Another proposal that I have some concerns about is the power for councils to be able to discharge their legal responsibilities to homeless families by offering a 12 month tenancy in the private rented sector. Whilst this may seem fair (at the moment this requires the consent of the homeless family), many people have expressed concerns about the condition of some privately rented homes, and the lack of investment in the properties by their landlords. This is clearly not the case everywhere, but safeguards need to be put in place in order to protect the most vulnerable from more exploitation by bad landlords. 

There are some more positive elements within the Bill, such as the reform of the Housing Revenue Account subsidy system, which has effectively robbed the majority of councils and their tenants of significant amounts of rental income for years.

I would be interested to hear the views of others on these measures, particularly on whether there is a cohesive policy here, or a collection of policy proposals without any clear direction.

David Wardle, Jan 7, 2011.

Mr Shapps and Housing Waiting Lists

So Mr Shapps sees the long waiting lists for social housing and claims that this is evidence that there is need for reform. Well, I suppose not many of us who work in the social housing sector would disagree with that, but when we look at the reforms that he proposes, there might just be some parting of opinions.

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news/housing-management/waiting-lists-confirm-need-for-reform/6512756.article

What do long waiting lists tell us? It may seem pretty obvious, but perhaps we need to take a closer look. Waiting lists are an indication of housing demand, not necesserily of housing need. Social landlords have methods - either by banding systems or points systems - to determine the relative degree of housing need of their applicants. So, there may be people on the waiting lists who are not in serious need for rehousing, whilst there will also be people who are homeless, and who are in dire need due to severe overcrowding, medical conditions, etc. People on waiting lists are not a homogeneous group of people. One thing they do have in common though in their desire to live in a home owned by either a local authority or a housing association. 


Since the right to buy was introduced by Mrs Thatcher in 1980, over 2 million council homes have been sold to sitting tenants. At the same time, the government stopped councils from building new homes and passed this responsibility to housing associations. So, how did they do? Well, as they were dependent on government subsidy to build, they managed to build about 1 million. The result is easy to calculate - a net reduction in the national social housing stock of about 1 million since 1980. 


The right to buy was a very popular policy and clearly enabled many people to realise their aspiration of home ownership who would otherwise have had little hope. The sale of those 2 million homes was the largest privatisation of them all, generating millions in capital receipts for councils. However, many people objected to the policy which said that councils could only (and this is still the case) spend 25% of the proceeds - and that did not have to be spent on housing. There are many leisure centres and plush council offices around the country that have been built from the sale of council homes.


The net loss in the national social housing stock of about 1 million has clearly had some effects and poses some questions. Is it any surprise that waiting lists are longer than they used to be? Would the lists be as long if councils had been forced to spend their right to buy receipts on building new replacement homes? Why were housing associations not provided with enough grant to enable them to fill the shortfall? 


So is there a need for reform? Clearly yes. But Mr Shapps' reforms are based on reducing the security of tenure for new tenants, raising rents to 'affordable' levels of 80% of market rates, and enabling landlords to deceide who can go on their lists. 


Previous policies can easily be criticised, and we are were we are. But to propose new policies which fail to address past mistakes (by Tory and Labour governments) is only going to compound the problems and to place more people in greater housing need. Real investment in building new social homes - by councils and housing associations - at genuine affordable rents has to be the way forward. The spin-off benefits are also clear in terms of employment opportunities, skills development, tax revenues etc.