North-East Threshold Confusion
Earlier this year I visited Middlesbrough and gave a training on the Community Trigger to a few agencies through a Resolve ASB regional meeting. There I learned something rather interesting ... and also extremely concerning.
One of the delegates told me that in their local area when a Community Trigger is raised, and it relates to one of their tenants, the police (lead agency) contact them to find out what log of the incidents they have. They send through a record of the reports of ASB and their responses. If the lead agency is satisfied with this log, and can see action was taken (on paper), they tell the victim the threshold has not been met.
No, no, no, no, NO!
Such a log should confirm that if there were 3 or more reports of ASB in the past six months, then yes, indeed the threshold has been met. The case review meeting should then be held to determine whether the right action has been taken and what more can be done.
It is hard enough to activate a Community Trigger in most parts of the country. Victims of anti-social behaviour in the North-East have an added layer - agency confusion over the threshold.
Now it starts to make sense that in our first report Northumberland reported 39 Triggers but that all 39 Triggers had not reached the threshold. Likewise County Durham had 5 and Darlington 4, South Tyneside 3, and Gatehead 2, all of which didn't meet the threshold. Hmm - suspicion rises. Not met the threshold, or on paper it looks like action was taken, so the lead agency has decided that equates to not meeting the threshold.
It makes me want to tear my hair out in frustration. Re-read the legislation please.
Sunderland Trigger versus the Legislation
The plot thickens when I look at Sunderland Council's website and the way they explain the Community Trigger:
Criteria for activating the Community Trigger:
- Three or more complaints from an individual about the same problem, over a six month period, where no action has been taken by relevant agencies
- Five individuals complaining about the same problem where no action has been taken by relevant agencies
Sunderland has defined 'no action' as:
Victim did not receive an initial acknowledgement;
No subsequent contact has been made with victim following initial complaint;
Issues identified were not followed up or no action occurred;
Outcomes and/or case closure not reported to victim.
The dreaded two-tier threshold AND the addition of 'no action taken' - not even 'unsatisfactory action' as was discussed during the pilots, but 'no action' and then a helpful summary of what that means. This does NOT empower victims at all - this basically says if victims receive an acknowledgement and told what is happening (or not going to happen) and perhaps even that the case has been closed, they cannot activate the Community Trigger. There is no opportunity for victims to question what has been done, nor for agencies to come together to problem solve the situation.
Let's see what the legislation says about the threshold:
(4)In a situation where—
(a)an application for an ASB case review is made, and
(b)at least three (or, if a different number is specified in the review procedures, at least that number of) qualifying complaints have been made about the anti-social behaviour to which the application relates,
the relevant bodies must decide that the threshold for a review is met.
See our latest report, pages 20-21, for our comments on the confusion surrounding the threshold which we believe should be standardised and certainly legal!
Practitioners: here is our guide to correctly publicising your Community Trigger: https://asbhelp.co.uk/practitioners-hub/asb-case-review-practitioners/
If you are a victim of anti-social behaviour in the North-East that has been unable to activate the Community Trigger, do get in touch with us and let us know what happened.
What would the abolition of Section 21 mean for private landlords and victims of ASB?
Often, local communities hold landlords responsible for the anti-social behaviour that takes place in their properties. The National Landlords Association says that in a survey of over 4,000 landlords, 14% reported tenants engaging in anti-social behaviours such as noise, drugs and prostitution over the last 12 months.
Currently, Section 21 can be used by landlords in England and Wales to evict tenants after a fixed term tenancy ends if there is a written contract, or during a tenancy which has no fixed end date if tenants are engaging in these behaviours.
Landlords can use ‘no fault’ Section 21 notices to gain possession of their property, without having to put neighbours, often the victims of the anti-social behaviour, through an ordeal at court giving evidence. The current Government wish to abolish Section 21, leaving landlords feeling “powerless” to deal with anti-social tenants who are affecting their neighbours and community. If it is abolished, a Section 8 notice will have to be used, allowing landlords to repossess a property if they can provide enough evidence to satisfy a court.
This may mean that victims of Anti-Social Behaviour will have no choice but to testify in court if they want the problem resolved. This process is costly, lengthy and puts the already distressed victim through further, unnecessary stress. Furthermore, in cases where the main issue is noise, alcohol or drugs, which are common complaints, it can often end up as your word against theirs. Additionally, neighbours and other tenants may be too scared to testify in court, or even report the issue in the first place.
Campaigners including the National Landlords Association and the Residential Landlords Association believe that Section 8 is not fit for purpose and are forming a coalition to seek retention of Section 21.
Read the full article here: https://propertyindustryeye.com/landlords-worried-about-anti-social-tenants-protest-against-abolition-of-section-21/
Rising Voices in Parliament
What was an occasional question about anti-social behaviour is becoming something of a groundswell of voices as more and more MPs express their concerns. Just in the past week or so debates and questions keep on coming and start to bring into the forefront some of the underlying failings. These are:
- the impact of cuts to agencies affecting their response to anti-social behaviour especially the impact of less visible policing
- the removal of funding for diversionary activities and support services, especially youth services but also mental health
- the fact we do not actually have any way to measure how effective the tools and powers from the 2014 Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act are and how widely they are being used because this information is not measured
- a recognition that the Community Trigger is a thing, and a thing that should be publicised and utilised
The Community Trigger in Parliament
On 7th June there was a written question about how victims can have a greater input into policies and approaches to tackling anti-social behaviour. The Community Trigger and Community Remedy were swiftly cited - but the former is not known about and the latter is rarely mentioned or used by practitioners.
On 10th June there was a specific question about the Community Trigger, its effectiveness and the requirement to publish data. The stock answers came back: there is an ASB Strategic Board which looks at this; statutory guidance was updated; and they are looking at the Victims' Commissioner's report carefully.
We wrote the Community Trigger section of that report. We campaigned to use the launch of the new statutory guidance as an opportunity to promote the Community Trigger (we were ignored and it was quietly published on 24 December 2017). We want to see this made fit for purpose and are delighted to see MPs starting to take note that more needs to be done.
Yet again the Community Trigger was raised in an oral question to the government by Tom Brake, MP, with a call to publicise it more effectively. Disappointingly the response was that MPs had that opportunity in their constituencies - having an opportunity and encouraging them to do it are two very different things. National promotion would set such local promotion in motion but there seems to be no political will to do so.
No Data
I have lost count of how many questions have been asked of the Home Office about data on the new anti-social behaviour powers. There was another, also on the 10th June, into prosecutions for anti-social behaviour in Leigh. That is a generic request, but drill down, and the reality is that no one is keeping a definitive record of the use of the powers set out in the 2014 Act. We have data on breaches, but without knowing how many injunctions or community protection notices were issued in the first place, it is impossible to know how high the breach rate is and therefore impossible to deduce whether the powers have been effective at stopping the anti-social behaviour. It is infuriating that this is accepted as the norm.
It is our opinion that Community Safety Partnerships do have a good idea of number of powers being used in their area and that with a bit of effort, information could be collated, not just for collection's sake but to actually enable the relevant people to make a fair assessment of usage and effectiveness of the powers. Surely this is common sense.
Debates on Particular Areas
The number of debates being secured in the House of Commons or Westminster Hall on the subject of anti-social behaviour are on the rise. After a number of years where it barely got a mention, there has been a steady run of them recently. After one from Hull MP Diana Johnson on 7th February 2019 following on from one from Hull West MP Emma Hardy specifically about anti-social behaviour in Hull and East Riding, held on 9th October 2018, the pace has quickened:
Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Stockton South: 14 May 2019
Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Small Towns: 5 June 2019
Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour in Slade Road, Birmingham: 11 June 2019
A good reminder that anti-social behaviour can impact anywhere and everywhere. People are genuinely concerned about anti-social behaviour in their towns, on their roads, in their communities and a current focus by the government on knife crime ignores the crucial link between anti-social behaviour and serious crime. It is frustrating to see so little connection made - if funding were made available once more to provide activities for people to draw them away from anti-social behaviour, and to fund the positive requirements of injunctions then there are huge opportunities to reduce not only the level of anti-social behaviour, but the level of serious crime too.
Of particular note, this comment in the debate on small towns, from MP Siobhain McDonagh:
"Mitcham town centre is unfortunately a hotbed of antisocial behaviour in the heart of the suburbs. Unchecked antisocial behaviour is the first step on a very slippery slope to the level of crime that we have heard described in the debate; the gulf between antisocial behaviour and serious crime is not as large as many of us allow ourselves to believe. There are small steps between noise and nuisance, drinking and drunkenness, and inconvenience and illegality."
This too was spot on from MP Richard Burden in the debate about Slade Road:
"I think all of us will recognise the picture that my hon. Friend is painting. The details may be different from area to area, but the overall picture is very recognisable. I put it to him that the problem with the overstretch is affecting the police and other services. It is not simply a matter of numbers; it is the fact that the overstretch is preventing them from intervening early, when it is most necessary. It is interrupting the neighbourhood policing that, if successful, heads off problems before they arrive. The mental health services can work effectively only if they intervene early, but the numbers are not there for them to do that."
It is encouraging to see MPs voicing their concerns and the concerns of their constituents. It is heartening to know that many others realise the issues and raise them forcefully. We hope real momentum for substantive change follows.