Anti Social Behaviour Bill: Second Reading

Citizens Advice recognises the destructive impact that anti-social behaviour can have upon neighbourhoods and communities and the need to tackle that behaviour by appropriate and fair methods that encourage respect and responsibility. Bureaux are well-placed to monitor the impact of anti-social behaviour; they see clients who are both the victims and the alleged perpetrators of persistent behaviour that is considered anti-social, be it neighbour disputes, harassment whether racial or otherwise, or serious criminal behaviour.

However, we do have serious concerns about some of the proposals in the Bill; we hoped that these concerns would be considered in consultation; unfortunately the speed at which this Bill is being processed makes this impossible. The Bill legislates for a range enforcement powers, which by themselves do little to tackle the known causes of anti-social behaviour such as mental health problems and drug and alcohol addiction. The enforcement powers also tend to confuse criminal behaviour and the criminal justice process with “anti-social behaviour” and appropriate sanctions and penalties, and blur distinctions between civil and criminal offences.

Our particular concerns are with the increased sanctions available to social landlords, and the potential use of draconian powers without appropriate safeguards.

Citizens Advice Bureaux in England, Wales and Northern Ireland deal with some 6 million problems raised by the people who contact them each year. Some of these enquiries, such as benefits (29 percent) and housing (10 percent), and reports of racist incidents are relevant to issues raised in the legislation and the preceding White Paper. Bureaux are only too aware of the distress caused by anti social behaviour and how clients’ lives can be ruined and communities wrecked. We are active in promoting local good practices and strategies that have proven effective in combating anti-social behaviour.

Landlords Powers Clauses 12-16

Citizens Advice welcome the introduction of a new duty on social landlords to publish their anti-social behaviour policies so that tenants and members of the public are aware of the measures that they will take to address anti-social behaviour in their stock. However, Citizens Advice is concerned about the potential uses of injunctions, demotion of tenancies and possession orders, as powers of first rather than last resort. The effect of these powers is to make it easier for social housing providers to evict tenants. In February 2003 Citizens Advice launched an evidence report called “Possession Action – the last resort?” The report was based on evidence from nearly 400 bureaux and on the findings of a survey of clients who received advice from bureaux at county courts in England and Wales. Whilst some social landlords were found to have systems for preventing arrears and for recovering rent debt without resorting to court action, many were taking possession action long before all reasonable steps had been aken to recover the arrears in other ways. The report also found:

There is wide variation in the way social landlords approach rent arrears recovery.

• in nearly a third of cases in the court survey the case was adjourned, an indication that court action may have been premature.
• 71 percent of tenants in the court survey were facing possession action for rent arrears whilst there were outstanding Housing Benefit issues which could reduce the amount of arrears owed.
• many of the tenants facing court action were vulnerable, for example because of mental health problems or learning difficulties.
• independent advice and representation can make a significant difference to the outcome of cases.

We are concerned that a similar pattern may emerge in applications for court orders to deal with anti-social behaviour– and that these processes will be initiated without appropriate warnings having been given first to offending tenants or referrals to social services or other appropriate agencies where people need help and support. Citizens Advice is concerned that there are insufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent this happening.

Police, Court and local authority powers

The Bill proposes a wide range of sanctions such as parenting orders and contracts, curfews, and fixed penalty notices to be used in cases of anti social behaviour

• Clauses 18-28 Parenting contracts & orders
• Clauses 29-32, 39 Dispersal and Curfews
• Clause 36 Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
• Clauses 38-39 Fixed penalty notices:

In order to ensure fair use of these sanctions by the police, courts and local authorities, an appropriate definition of anti-social behaviour will be needed. However this does not appear in this Bill. Indeed, as the Social Exclusion Unit reports on anti-social behaviour point out that there is no clear definition of anti-social behaviour , and a recent report for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also highlights the level of subjectivity involved in deciding what constitutes anti-social behaviour, and the importance of having regard to “the context in which it took place, the location, the tolerance levels of the local community and expectations about the quality of life in an area.” The extension of penalising powers outside of the court process may also raise concerns about possible breaches of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right to a fair adjudication.

However, our key concerns are with our client’s experiences of social exclusion. The lack of safe play and recreational facilities for children and young people, and of childcare facilities in many areas is an issue that has been raised on many occasions in Citizes Advice Bureaux by parents. There is a need to ensure that punitive and controlling aspects of this legislation do not militate against the safety and welfare of children. Many children and young people gather outdoors precisely because they are escaping unhappy homes, arguments, or are on the streets because they have runaway in order to escape from abuse or neglect.

In our view, the priority is to ensure that the necessary multi-agency responses are in place in every area to respond to children in distress and at risk, to protect vulnerable adults and offer appropriate mental health and mediation services in the community.

CAB evidence illustrates the very real need to find effective ways of tackling anti social behaviour:

A CAB in North London reported a case of a woman with a one-year old child subjected to repeated racist attacks in her home. Graffiti is spray painted on the door and petrol poured through her letterbox. The incidents had been reported to the landlord, a local authority, and the police. The police report had been sent to the Local Authority – the Local Authority said they would move the client, but many months passed with no action. In this case the CAB says the police took a proactive approach – patrolling the housing estate at night.

However, often this pro-active and preventative approach is lacking both on the part of the police or other supportive agencies. For example:

A Community Outreach Unit in the West Midlands reported a council tenant who had twice been attacked by a neighbour who is an owner-occupier, elderly and with mental health problems. Several other people have also been attacked. The CAB were unable to find anyone to take action – the local housing office would not act because the perpetrator was an owner occupier, the police would not press charges because of the perpetrator’s mental health history, social services had been called out but said they could do little as the perpetrator has refused support.

Often, the most appropriate type of services needed are just not there:

A CAB in South East attempted to help a client whose elderly parents were suffering verbal abuse and intimidation from their neighbours. However the CAB was unable to find any local mediation service to intercede and the community safety officer was also unable to help.

A CAB in Greater Manchester advised a client who had reported racial harassment to the NASS accommodation provider and police but heard nothing from either about action that would be taken.

Another CAB in the North East reported a case where a family had been experiencing racial harassment and threats for over a year, including windows broken, stones thrown at the family members and graffiti. The clients lived in constant fear. They had applied to the local authority for a transfer. The CAB was surprised the council did not seek to involved the anti-social behaviour officer when they received the request.

A CAB in the South East reported a case where the council had failed to repair damage to a clients property that resulted from racial harassment – over six months had passed since the repairs were reported. The council publishes a 10 day response time

On the powers for LEAs and schools on parenting contracts, parenting orders and fixed penalty notices, these powers may be necessary in certain particularly difficult cases. However we would not want to see them used on a routine basis, or as an alternative to tackling the real isssues of social exclusion, as Shelter warn 750,000 children in England live in poor housing, many suffering serious health problems as a result.

Are benefits on the sanctions list?

We are pleased that some of the more draconian measures recommended in the White Paper have not so far found their way into the legislation – such as the proposals to introduce benefit sanctions. However, we are concerned that such powers might be introduced in future legislation. In our view the proposal to consider withholding Housing Benefit entitlement as a sanction against anti-social behaviour, would not be an appropriate, effective or equitable way of achieving effective local strategies for tacking anti social behaviour. Policy must be based on evidence of what will work, and must be fair and reasonable. The CAB service feels very strongly that the benefits system, should not be used as a means of imposing penalties for offences under the criminal justice system. Benefit penalties bear little relationship to the known causes of anti-social behaviour such as mental health problems and drug and alcohol addiction. The danger is that people may be wrongly accused because the full circumstances are not known. For example

A CAB in the North reported a couple with 2 children whose neighbours had been petitioning the housing association to evict them because of their “lively” child who has attention deficit hyperactive disorder.

Conclusion – The need for a preventative approach

Overall, there is an undue focus in this Bill on enforcement rather than preventative activity. However, there is also much that is positive in its parent White Paper, which this legislation fails to take forward; for example the proposal for Community Justice Centres. This proposal would assist in civilianising its operations and develop a better system for dealing with low-level offences other than through the courts, but in a quasi-judicial manner. Provided that a full range of legal assistance, rights and protections could be provided to any person involved in proceedings in these centres, we would support such initiatives. The importance adopting a multi-agency response need to support families and communities in crisis has been outlined by the recent SEU report ; we would like to see such an approach developed in all areas of the country.