Anti-social behaviour: policy & procedure – draft statutory code of
guidance
Response by the Chartered Institute
of Housing to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
June 2004
The Chartered Institute of Housing’s
response to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
Anti-social behaviour: policy &
procedure – draft statutory code of guidance
The
Chartered Institute of Housing is
the only professional organisation representing all those working in housing.
Its purpose is to maximise the contribution that housing professionals make to
the well being of communities.
CIH has over 18,000 individual members working for local authorities,
housing associations, Government bodies, educational establishments and the
private sector.
Chartered
Institute of Housing
Octavia
House
Westwood
Way
Coventry
CV4 8JP
Tel. 024
7685 1700
Fax. 024
7669 5110
For
further information on this response please contact Sam Lister, Policy Officer,
at the above address.
CIH supports the new requirement
on social landlords to publish an anti-social behaviour policy and procedure
and we therefore welcome the publication of the draft statutory code of
guidance to assist them with this new duty. We give our support to the draft
the draft guidance subject to our comments below.
MATTERS NOT COVERED IN THE DRAFT GUIDANCE
Media Strategy
There is no mention in the
document of a media strategy. This is a significant omission. A good media
strategy can make a contribution towards both deterrence and boosting the moral
of the community which is blighted by anti-social behaviour. Many authorities
that have pioneered the use of ASBOs have also published details of those ASBOs
at the community level.
Standard documentation and branding
Within a local authority
there may be many departments involved in investigating and reporting on
anti-social behaviour, for example, housing, social services and environmental
health. The position is even more complex if other external partners are
considered. It would be helpful if this documentation could, as far as possible
be standardised. Whether or not this is possible any forms and letters used
should be placed in the procedure so that all staff are familiar with them.
It may also be helpful to
consider branding documents so that it appears that they originate from a
single source – the anti-social behaviour partnership – perhaps with a common
logo and letterhead. This would allow partners the flexibility to work with
their own practices but send out a strong message that work on tackling
anti-social behaviour is coordinated (such as data sharing) and may contribute
towards the deterrent effect.
Extent of the guidance
We accept that the guidance
is intended only for local authority landlords etc and does not directly apply
to RSLs. However, the guidance points out that RSLs will have to consider
Housing Corporation guidance which may in turn ask RSLs to consider the local
authority guidance. Our members who work for RSLs (particularly smaller
landlords) have expressed concern that they are unlikely to have the capacity
carry out the range of activities suggested by the local authority code. Any
consequential guidance to RSLs should reflect their capacity.
OTHER COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT GUIDANCE
Chapter 2
2.10 Consultation
Reference is made under this
section to stakeholder groups such as the elderly, BME communities and other
communities (paragraph 2.14). Whilst the list is a reasonable one it may be
worth emphasising that consideration should be given to relative vulnerability
and propensity of groups as targets of anti-social behaviour. Consideration
should also be given to the effect of the anti-social behaviour on each
community. It is well known that fear of crime can be as debilitating as actual
levels of crime itself, particularly on groups who are less able to defend
themselves (for example, the elderly).
Consideration should also be
given fragility of community and relative effect on the quality of life of its
residents. Research by the Home Office (British Crime Survey 2000) has shown
that anti-social behaviour has a disproportionate effect on the quality of life
of poorer communities. Whilst this should not affect how complaints are made it
should be considered as part of the statement of policy. It may also be a
factor in determining the level of support to those affected by anti social
behaviour. Any statement should make it clear that the vulnerability of the
community and residents affected will be a factor in the severity of the
measures taken in response. Where community cohesion is at risk it should be
clear that the response is likely to be swift and severe.
Chapter 3
3.2 Definition
of anti-social behaviour
Guidance from the Social
Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group (SLCNG)[1]
provides a useful list which will help authorities appreciate the range of
behaviours that a procedure should cover. Whatever the types of behaviour the
final procedure is designed to encompass it should include examples that
reflect local problems. It is important that the procedure is accessible, easy
to understand and relevant to those to whom it is addressed.
We appreciate that examples
are given but even these may be a little too general to give a wide enough
picture of the types of behaviour that a policy and statement should cover. The
SLCNG guidance provides a list of categories of behaviour with a list of
possible examples. The advantage of this approach is that it helps the reader
better appreciate the full range, degree and types of behaviour that may be
covered. A constant stream of low level incidents can be as demoralising as a
single major incident. It is important that residents are not discouraged from
reporting incidents because each one on its own might be perceived as trivial,
whereas it is in fact part of a wider picture of persistent low level
anti-social behaviour.
3.31 Data
Protection and information exchange
The statement of policy
should be clear about the position on data protection. Data protection law is
poorly understood by both the public and public officials alike. Recent high
profile cases in other areas of social care such as child protection have shown
how little well understood the law of data protection is and how this may
undermine effective action. Often what is ‘known’ is inaccurate and based on
myth. This could act as a source of encouragement to those contemplating an
anti-social act, for example, unless it is understood that data can be shared
then this may undermine may undermine any deterrent effect. On the other hand
those who report an incident need to be reassured that their identity will be
protected.
The guidance should make
reference to the Information Commissioners checklist on drawing up information
sharing agreements and guidance on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which is not
generally well known. Understandably some landlords and their partners play
safe on this issue and so may operate an unnecessarily restrictive policy which
undermines their effectiveness despite there being a genuine commitment to
tackling anti-social behaviour. Another reason for caution in this area is the
data subject’s right of access to information held about them. If the landlord
is not confident about the law then this may influence the quality of
information and intelligence held.
Chapter 4
4.5 Processing
a complaint of ASB
Whilst it would be wrong to
be prescriptive about timescales it should be clear that a good procedure would
have give a reasonable indication of the time each stage of the process is
likely to take. Timescales will vary considerably locally, for example the time
a particular court action is likely to take which can be inferred from previous
cases. If complainants have a reasonable expectation about the length of time
of each stage then they are less likely to become disillusioned with the
process. Timescales help give people confidence in the process.
4.8 Supporting
complainants
We suggest the guidance
should be a little more emphatic about the importance of support in ensuring
that any policies and procedures are effective. Witnesses are only likely come
forward if they are confident that the landlord will support them. It should be
clear that support can continue beyond a successful intervention if
necessary.
4.10 Options available to landlords
We agree that the statement
of procedures should include types of legal and non-legal action available to
the landlord and the circumstances in which each might be appropriate. It may
also be helpful to outline (possibly by way of examples) the circumstances when
a particular course of action might not be appropriate and the factors taken
into account when deciding to use a particular remedy. Whilst residents have
the right to expect that their complaint will be dealt with it is important
that they do not have unrealistic expectations and that the remedy applied will
be proportionate, effective and take account of the needs of the community as a
whole. What matters is that action chosen will have reasonable prospects of
success. However, this will not always be the course of action that the
complainant would prefer, for example, the resident suffering from the
activities of their anti-social neighbour may just want the person evicted
although this may not always be the most effective remedy.
Cost is also an important
consideration in deciding the most appropriate form of action and this should
be made clear. At the early stages of a complaint it maybe that cheaper and
more proportionate course of action is appropriate. For example, acceptable
behaviour contracts are likely to precede the use of an injunction or an
anti-social behaviour order. Conversely if the complaint is serious enough then
it may be appropriate to apply a more severe form of intervention immediately.
However, it should also be clear that a particular remedy should never be ruled
out on the grounds of cost alone.
CIH is concerned about the
use of injunctions nationally and we are aware that there are still some
authorities that make little effective use of these powers. We appreciate that
there may be many legitimate reasons for the failure to use injunctions:
including lack of appropriate training and mistaken beliefs about their use
(e.g. it is common misconception that they are necessarily expensive and
difficult to obtain). However, we do not think it would be acceptable to have a
policy which either completely ruled out their use or attached such restrictive
qualifying conditions that they were only likely to be used in very exceptional
circumstances. We therefore believe that the guidance should make clear that injunctions
are a mainstream intervention which authorities should expect to use, but
without being prescriptive as to the circumstances when they should apply.