Our new report shows how victims are being let down by ASB Case Reviews

It’s an exciting day for ASB Help as we launch our brand new report on ASB Case Review. We sent out Freedom of Information requests to all local areas and have crunched and collated all the data they sent back.

What we found was a postcode lottery in the application of the ASB Case Review statutory guidance and a lack of engagement with victims as part of the ASB Case Review process and, in some areas, this just isn’t good enough.

Some of our key findings include:

• Nearly half of local areas (44%) do not give victims the opportunity to attend the initial hearing of the ASB Case Review. Statutory guidance states that relevant bodies should always consider inviting the victim to attend a section of the case review meeting.
• Most local areas adhered to the criteria of three incidents reported in a six- month period. However, 27 out of the 230 areas also had additional caveats in order for a victim to meet the threshold – these caveats are not suggested in the statutory guidance and include such stipulations as the case must be closed or must not have been reported through diary sheets.
• In 62 out of the 230 responding areas, there was only 2 ways in which the ASB Case Review could be applied for. Interestingly, for 14% of those areas they had received no ASB Case Review applications.

We are really dismayed to see a lack of victims voice in the ASB Case Review process – as well as caveats added to whether someone can apply for a Case Review. To change this we want to see the below:

1. All victims must be invited to attend for the first part of their ASB Case Review, so they have an opportunity to tell key agencies about the impact and harm the ASB has caused them.
2. The threshold for the ASB Case Review, which is defined in the statutory guidance as making three (or more) qualifying complaints in a six-month period, must be made the legal threshold.
3. ASB Case Reviews should be widely promoted and accessible to victims to submit an application by offering a range of online and offline opportunities to access the process and preferably a named contact.
4. All ASB Case Reviews should have an independent chair, and this should be made a ‘requirement’ rather than a ‘recommendation’ in the statutory guidance.
5. The appeals process for the ASB Case Review should be reformed and written into the statutory guidance, to bring about consistent practice for appeals across England and Wales.