WHY LANDLORDS SHOULD GET THE HELL OUT OF ASB

27/11/2009 12:13 pm

Firstly, I know how hard it is to get an order against a former tenant and this is why in part this press release is so self-congratultory.

Yet what has happened here is a litany of criminal activity of abuse, extortion, assaults and the perpetrator is still at large.

Why is that? Simple. Because RSLs have taken on board responsibility for criminal activity because the Police wont do their job.

Is this the community role we want for social landlords?

Look at what this vile individual has done – assault, abuse, extortion – Are they not criminal activities? They are clearly yet why is his punishment simply being excluded from a geographical area?

Does that stop him from carrying on with his crimes in other areas? No.

If Police had done their job in investigating his criminal activity would he have received greater and correct punishment? Yes he would.

If a landlord can persuade a judge to issue an order could the police? The answer to that must be yes. So why are the police doing absolutely nothing about the crimes of tenants and former tenants? Because they can get away with not doing anything about it because social landlords stupidly have taken on the ASB role.

It is clear than the behaviour of the person here was 'anti-social.' Yet it is abundantly clear that it was CRIMINAL so why have the police stood by and let landlords deal with this?

If these crimes had been committed by a private tenant or a home owner would the police have had to take responsibility? Yes they would.

So this exposes the reality and the sheer bloody stupidity of social landlords getting involved in so-called ‘asb’

It means if you are a tenant you can expect LESS of a police service and LESS protection of your right to safety and the same to all the populace if the CRIMES are committed by a social tenant.

“We hope this case gives tenants the confidence to report anti-social behaviour safe in the knowledge that we will act quickly and take a hard line against perpetrators.”

You must be joking Mr Coffey!

SAFE IN THE KNOWLEDGE...that the Police will and have done absolutely bugger all to stop this person repeating these criminal activities – AND TAKE A HARD LINE?

So being excluded from a number of streets is a hard line punishment for criminal assault, mental and emotional and financial abuse and extortion!!!

Social landlords need to have a rethink. Their willingness to adopt the community policing role means their tenants are significantly worse off because of this assumed role and their tenants and the most vulnerable are being abused because of social landlords taking on this role.

Its time for social landlords to protect their communities better and get the hell out of asb

27/11/2009 1:54 pm

I started my comments by saying how hard it is for landlords to get ASB sanctions against tenants and former tenants. It is very difficult and I can see why the landlord has issued this news release.

Yet nothing of substance has been achieved. The prepetrator of these vile crimes can carry on in another geographical area and has not been dealt with as he should have done.

Yet this shows just how embedded in landlords thinking asb is and even the most innocuous result (against a serial perpetrator) is celebrated. The fact that a CEO doesnt recognise that this tenant and former tenant has got away with it shows the futility of landlords dealing with asb and how even their better results as this is achieve nothing of substance, and why a major rethink is needed.

I have always argued against social landlords being 'responsible' for asb and how this places them at huge risk to blame from all and sundry. On this point I have consistently argued that landlords dont have a necessary deterrent factor to perpetrators and this case wholly proves that point.

The aim is to cease and desist such behaviours yet without a suitably effective deterrent the whole system collapses and its other social tenants and their neighbours that suffer.

That situation cant be allowed to continue, its deeply offensive and wrong.

Why should social landlords have to pay tens of thousands in legal fees when the police have received the money to do that in council taxes? Why should social landlords have to spend such ludicrous amounts that wouldnt cost a home owner or a private landlord?

Social tenants and social landlords are being perversely penalised by being discriminated against by police inaction. That is so offensive.

Its time for social landlords to seriously rethink their involvement in asb and withdraw. Its also time for tenants to back that withdrawal and make the police give them the same treatment that all others receive.

Why should social tenants and the vast majority of them are perfectly law abiding have to put up with this inadequate system? They shouldnt. Why should they lambast their landlords for asb? They shouldnt and only have a case to lambast them for being stupid enough to get involved.

Social tenants need to lobby for the police to do their job and not pass the buck to social landlords. If they dont then they will continue to suffer higher levels of what is now conveniently known as ab because the current system involves social landlords doing the community policing role for which perpetrators must laugh at as they get away with crime after crime.

27/11/2009 2:18 pm

We all know that there is often a very fine dividing line between true "crime" and ASB. Sometimes social landlords become involved in tackling sub-criminal activity in the absence of police involvement and in the knowledge that their communities want someone to take action.
In my experience social landlords are good at nipping problems in the bud and, perhaps, preventing a potential criminal become hardened. What must happen though is effective dialogue between the police, social landlords and other partners so that each is aware of the action to be taken and is signed up to the approach. This is a theme that the Home Secretary is keen to see developed - possibly in the form of proper shared case-management.
The police are having an impact on ASB in communities and their high profile is doing much to restore community confidence. But they don't always have the right answer or, indeed, the right approach.
In response to calls from our membership over many years, the Social Landlords Crime & Nuisance Group has lobbied for, and got, most of the powers that are now used to tackle ASB in the community. Sadly, Social landlords are now the only non-law enforcement agency looking after the welfare of their communities by operating at the local level. Long may that continue.
Finally, managing tenancies and dealing with ASB is an integral part of the contract that exists between tenants and landlords. Surely we are not suggesting that social landlords pick and choose which aspects of the tenancy agreement they will deal with?
Peter Jackson
Managing Director
Social Landlords Crime & Nuisance Group

27/11/2009 2:56 pm

I note your points Blair, but extorting a vulnerable person by marching them to a cashpoint? That's mugging (at least) by any other name. The day the Police shouldn't be "interested" in that is the day the last person to leave the country can turn the lights off. In fairness to the police, most of the victims involved in this would probably be too scared of reprisals to take these matters any further, as no matter how big a city might be, they'll always know where you live - as negative that might sound, it's a harsh reality. I've known numerous ASB cases where lead witnesses have had a 3am brick through the window, some have buckled, others remained strong, and indicative of the general weak nature of the bully, those that stood strong suffered nothing further.

27/11/2009 4:31 pm

.....continued

If as in this case the perpetrator is still at large and no criminal prosecution is in force (else why would landlord get this decision if he was ‘banged up’ for his crimes?) –

How can it be said to be working or a better system or in the welfare interests of the communities he has terrorised?

All citizens suffer the impact of ASB – its tenure neutral in housing speak – or in lay terms owner occupiers, private tenants and social tenants suffer from its actions and behaviours.

So why have social landlords willingly taken on the role of community police and delivered less of a service than if it was a gated 100% mortgaged community?

My underlying point is that if social landlords said we will play a supporting role and demanded the police take their correct lead role then communities would be far better served that the ineffectual service they now receive.

Time for a major rethink

30/11/2009 10:39 am

Social housing tenants are being shortchanged here and that is something tenants groups should be looking at strongly.

If the events of this case had affected private tenants or owner occupiers the police would have had to intervene and take responsibility.

So I tend to agree with Blair that the police dont want to investigate what they term 'low-level crime' and its very easy to ignore their responsibilities and duties and pass the buck to a social landlord.

Yet what this really means is police are discriminating against the victims of crimes and nuisance where the perpetrator is a social tenant. As this cse has shown eviction is not a panacea to arrest such behaviours, rather it is a licence to go on and commit even more vile offences.

Until social landlords insist on police taking the lead role in so called ASB then tenants will continue to be shortchanged by receiving a lesser service from the police. Its time landlords faced up to these facts and they demanded that police lead on crime - low level and high level.

RSLs leading on asb has been a spectacular failure.

On the surface RSLs providing such a service that is not available to private tenants and owner occupiers seems a great benefit to social tenants and their neighbours in theory. Its an additional service. Yet in reality as this - and countless others show - the system cant work and social tenants receive a much worse service.

The police do leave 'low-level' crime to landlords and perpetrators dont fear the risk of landlord involvement. What the hell is low-level crime? And surely crime is crime and always a police responsibility?

The 3am brick through the window - I accept this happens though is the witness better protected by the police or a landlord from this? Does your landlord come out at 3am to deal with this? The brick is a crime as is witness intimidation so who is better placed to deal with this, the police or the landlords asbo team?

RSLs should play a strong supporting role of course and should fully support the much advertised "police pledge" that means the police lead on 'asb' and will have to act. Just making sure all tenants know of the "police pledge" would be a start and a more efficient way of dealing with 'asb.'

30/11/2009 3:13 pm

Councils and housing association landlords (RSLs) should not be leading and deciding up cases of crime and nuisance. Yet because they are social tenants are being shortchanged.

Its not a case of trust at all - though i see Teddy's point - its a case of getting the service right. RSLs shouldnt take on board so called 'asb' not because of any principle but because it doesnt serve tenants (and their neighbours) best.

RSLs should fully support police and that is their role a support one not a lead one. It is in taking on this lead role that sees tenants shortchanged and the problems not being solved.

The current 'system' is so flawed. Perpetrators assess the risk from landlord sanctions as weak and ineffective for example - the ultimate sanction eviction was used in this case and led to increased crimes. Police let landlords get on with what has become termed 'low-level' crime - such terminology is a nonsense and a crime is a crime and is police responsibility, end of.

The amount of monies that landlords spend getting ASBOs and ASBIs is obscene - one council spending £170k in legal fees to exclude a 14 year old from 5 streets!. That amount of money may well be an extreme case yet what problem did it solve other than to move behaviours to a neighbouring area?

That is the rub of the issue. Landlord interventions simply dont solve 'asb' problems - again look at the case above as but one example of many.

RSL asbo teams can produce as many surveys as they like that say tenants feel safer but they dont. A simple one survey question is all thats needed - Who do you want to deal with crime and nuisance, your landlord or the police? Any RSL care to ask that direct and obvious question?

Or perhaps a second - should your landlord or police deal with 'low-level' crime? On second thoughts RSLs would have to explain what 'low-level' crime is wouldnt they? So thats not going to happen.

Maybe - Should your landlord lead on asb issues or should they support the police?

Or one for the TSA pink bus asking tenants - Would you feel safer if police led on asb issues or your landlord?

Landlords, TSA and tenants groups dont ask such blindingly obvious questions and dont consult on such issues because they know the answer will be the police in all cases. They know the police will better deal with 'asb' than landlords too.

Its about time such questions were asked!

30/11/2009 3:49 pm

When a gentleman, a jap p.o.w is bullied Iin my home, and the bully and that what is complicit in bullying [ who mocks my illness] think they get away with it, and their next senior is a "hired officer" and agent "provocateur" and when we climb the platinum plated salaried/pensioned scale, the attitude of the pen-pushers head honchoes attitude to bullying of this great man, turned 90 saturday last, is "my staff are,nt doormats" he is right there they are bullies like him, and silence from the controlloing parties leader [now disgraced] his silence as is the cowardly behaviour of the portfolio holder for housing whom this great man invited to his home but never as much as acknowledged , joe the list is endless, my friend, N.B.C IS RUN BY BULLIES

30/11/2009 3:50 pm

When a gentleman, a jap p.o.w is bullied Iin my home, and the bully and that what is complicit in bullying [ who mocks my illness] think they get away with it, and their next senior is a "hired officer" and agent "provocateur" and when we climb the platinum plated salaried/pensioned scale, the attitude of the pen-pushers head honchoes attitude to bullying of this great man, turned 90 saturday last, is "my staff are,nt doormats" he is right there they are bullies like him, and silence from the controlloing parties leader [now disgraced] his silence as is the cowardly behaviour of the portfolio holder for housing whom this great man invited to his home but never as much as acknowledged , joe the list is endless, my friend, N.B.C IS RUN BY BULLIES

01/12/2009 11:14 am

I think all of this has been brought very much into focus by the death of the little boy in Liverpool yesterday. In that case, the housing officer had suspicions of illegal dog breeding, called it into the police and was told that it is 'not a police matter'. Now a child is dead. It's a police matter now isn't it?