Partners in crime

Under the new standards set by the Tenant Services Authority social landlords not only have to tackle anti-social behaviour but also provide evidence of how they are meeting their obligations. But their ability to do this could be constrained by scarce resources and the ongoing challenge of ensuring effective partnership working with other agencies, writes Mark Smulian.

Vandalism, swearing, graffiti, intimidating gangs, noise…social landlords must not just act against anti-social behaviour but be able to prove they have done so under the six new performance standards issued by the Tenant Services Authority.

Work on keeping neighbourhoods trouble-free has of course never stopped since the initial novelty of anti-social behaviour orders in 1999. But recently, apart from former prime minister Tony Blair’s short-lived ‘respect agenda’, it has had a rather lower profile.

The TSA’s Neighbourhood and Community Standard may change that. It includes requirements that landlords will:

  • keep the neighbourhood and communal areas associated with the homes that they own clean and safe
  • co-operate with relevant partners to help promote social, environmental and economic well being where they own properties
  • work in partnership with other public agencies to prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour, and
  • set out in an annual report how they are meeting these obligations and how they intend to meet them in the future.

On top of those general requirements there is a lengthy list of ‘specific expectations’, which include:

  • publishing an anti-social behaviour policy
  • demonstrating that tenants are made aware of their responsibilities and rights in relation to this
  • having a strong focus on preventative measures tailored towards the needs of tenants and their families, and
  • taking prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with misbehaviour before it escalates.

Since social landlords have many other responsibilities, these new requirements could prove a tall order, even though many, in particular those that inherited large council estates through stock transfer, will have years of experience in this field.

They now possess a quite formidable collection of powers with which to tackle anti-social behaviour, though whether they have the resources to deploy them is another matter.

The standard’s emphasis on partnership working is clearly sensible since landlords, the police and local authority social services all have complementary roles, but there can be confusion and cases could fall between all three.

While the new government has made threatening noises about the Tenant Services Authority in its proposed cull of quangos, it is unlikely to want to appear lax on anti-social behaviour so radical changes to landlords’ powers are unlikely.

Tim Crook, principal of Housing Law Services, says: “I think broadly speaking there are enough powers but there are issues in the overlapping responsibilities between social landlords, the police and local authorities.”

The main source of difficulty he sees is the emphasis in the standard on working with families, which inevitably draws in social services.

“That is a clear signal that they are looking to providers to take responsibility for things such as parenting orders but when it comes to family interventions what is missing is the question of who pays for this,” Crook says.

“There is a thorny issue about working together. If you have to have more preventative work, who does that with families? Is it the provider or social services, and does one have to pay the other for any of this?”

Crook points out that local authority social services will be facing budget cuts and may have priorities of their own. “It is going to be looking for much more intervention at an early stage and in that traditionally social services may be the providers.”

He also thinks the standard will create more work for landlords at a time when they too may be feeling the pinch.

“Providers are already doing an awful lot of work to the standard anyway, but are now going to have to demonstrate what they are doing and have an evidence base,” Crook says.

“What the TSA will want to see is an audit trail showing that landlords have met the specific expectations. Most of them are doing the work, but the change is that will have to be able to demonstrate that.”

Devonshires partner Nick Billingham thinks landlords have ample powers with to tackle anti-social behaviour and so should be able to meet the standard were it not for issues of resources, inter-agency confusion and the attitude of the courts.

“They’ve got powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, indeed the toolbox is full with both housing powers relating to tenancies, and non-housing ones like drink banning orders and parenting orders,” he says.

“The issue is the resources to go with that in the tight financial world now. The history is one of ducking and avoiding by some agencies hoping another will take things on. Housing associations can end up having to take action because they are there on the ground, but generally partnerships have been quite effective.”

Billingham questions the extent to which the courts will allow landlords to use some of their more radical intervention powers. Family intervention tenancies, closure orders and ‘demoted’ tenancies have been little used, he says, with anti-social behaviour orders and injunctions still being the commonest weapons used.

“Anything that involves possession of a home is very much a last resort,” says Billingham. “A lot of judges seem very sceptical because with these orders a further breach can lead to eviction and the judge does not get to look again at the circumstances before that happens, so they often prefer to make suspended orders, even though they are dealing with responsible housing providers who do not want to evict except in a last resort.

“Different judges take different views but many think they should not allow an eviction without it coming back to court.”

Christine Steele, a solicitor Viridian Housing, known until recently as Servite Houses, says it has assembled in-house expertise to deal with anti-social behaviour and family interventions,

“We feel we have the resources to deal with it as we have an in-house legal team,” she says. “Landlords that do not might find difficulty in terms of costs to solicitors, though local government will usually have access to in-house expertise too.” Viridian has its own anti-social behaviour and family intervention teams and so can use these resources without recourse to other agencies.

Steele says this approach is useful because of differing priorities. “On one of our estates in Brixton, for example, we know the police on the beat there and work really well together on a daily basis,” she says.

“But where we don’t have clear relationships like that it can be difficult to get the police involved in anti-social behaviour cases.

“I sometimes think they think they have better things to do and have more demands on their resources. For example, the protection from harassment power is there but they do not use it.”

The National Housing Federation – the trade body for housing associations – sees no need for any additions to the “quite comprehensive powers on anti-social behaviour, and if members felt they did not have enough powers we would be calling for change, but we aren’t,” explains Anna Dent, policy officer for anti-social behaviour.

She adds: “Resources is potentially an issue but good partnership working with the police and local authorities can deliver a solution. There may be a risk of confusing but where partnerships are effective, it does the opposite and leads to clarity over responsibilities.”

Help could be at hand from the professional body, the Chartered Institute of Housing, which has appointed its first three advisors to its government-funded action team on anti-social behaviour. They will work on a regional basis with housing providers who need most support to reduce anti-social behaviour.

Mark Smulian is a freelance journalist.