Citizens Advice Bureaux work on a daily basis with low-income households, and are only too aware of the impact of anti -social behaviour on local communities, and of the need to find effective ways of dealing with this. We welcome many of the initiatives which this Government has made to tackle anti-social behaviour and we note that there is growing evidence of the effectiveness of measures such as anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and injunctions. However we can see no merit in introducing housing benefit sanctions:
- it is inappropriate to use the means tested benefits system to impose penalties for offences under the criminal justice system,
- there is no evidence to suggest that they will be an effective deterrent,
- their application will undoubtedly lead to undesirable outcomes such as an increase in rent arrears and possible homelessness.
- significant additional burdens will be imposed on public services, in both administering the system and dealing with the undesirable outcomes.
Tackling anti-social behaviour
Citizens Advice Bureaux provide frontline advice in local communities and as a result regularly see evidence of the distress that anti-social behaviour causes, and the extent to which the victims feel that the responses by the various authorities are inadequate.
A CAB in Bedfordshire reported a family with young children who have experienced a history of problems of violence against themselves and their property including cars burned, vandalism and personal attacks. Their 2 year old child was shot at through the letter box and the children have now been put into voluntary care by the parents as they do not consider it safe for them to be at home. The police have been involved but the clients are too scared to name the perpetrators. Their housing association refuses to transfer them because they have arrears of rent.
A CAB in Merseyside reported a family which has been subjected to neighbour nuisance for about five years. Two families and one man in particular have been terrorising the client, his elderly parent and his disabled brother. His brother has been attacked, their cars have been smashed and children shout abuse. The man regularly breaches his bail condition that he should not approach the family, but the police do not respond to the client’s request for help and the client is left alone to cope with the situation.
A CAB in Greater Manchester reported a young single parent who is constantly harassed by youths on her estate who demand that she buys alcohol and cigarettes for them. When she refuses they kick the pram and make threats against her. When she reported it to her housing officer and asked for a transfer she was told that it could take 2 years before anything would happen. She is afraid to go to the police in case the youths take retaliation against her.
CAB evidence also shows the complexity of the issues involved, the difficulties in apportioning blame and the challenges faced by authorities seeking to tackle anti- social behaviour:
A CAB in Merseyside reported a young man who has an introductory tenancy of a council flat. He was in danger of being evicted for anti-social behaviour. He was adamant that he was not at fault and that the problems were caused by youths congregating near the entrance to his flat. He had confronted the youths and approached the police for help but to no avail. He tried staying away from his property but this resulted in the property being burgled in his absence.
A CAB in Greater Manchester reported a single parent who had had a lot of problems with her neighbour which she thought had been resolved after the neighbour was prosecuted and they all attended mediation classes. However she recently received a letter from the council demanding a meeting to discuss the anti-social behaviour of her 14-year-old son. The allegation was that he had been seen driving her car. In fact she said she had simply asked her son to let the handbrake off her car whilst it was on her land, so that it could be moved back a small distance so she could open the garage door. She assumes that the neighbour witnessed this and made the complaint.
In many instances, these challenges are compounded by the vulnerability of one of the parties involved:
A CAB in East London reported a client whose son has schizophrenia and receives support from the community mental health team. The client complained that her son was being persecuted by the housing manager and is subjected to harassment. He has been banned from the estate office because of his shouting and verbal abuse, and the neighbour has installed a video camera which the estate officer monitors. As a result of this, they have been served with a notice to quit.
A CAB in Yorkshire reported a couple with 2 children whose neighbours had been petitioning the housing association to evict them because of the anti-social behaviour of their child. However the reason for the child’s behaviour is that he has attention deficit hyperactive disorder.
A CAB in Staffordshire reported that they had been contacted by the local housing association for advice. An elderly tenant who is a wheel chair user felt he was being taken advantage of by youths using drugs. He had originally let them into his flat because they provided him with some basic care and companionship which was not otherwise available to him. However he was unable to stop them taking drugs or control their behaviour. As a result of complaints by other tenants, the association was considering evicting the tenant. However they were concerned that this would only remove rather than resolve the problem, and would result in the loss of his home and isolation for an elderly man in poor health.
A CAB in Suffolk reported a single parent with learning difficulties whose 13-year-old son has been involved in a number of anti-social behaviour incidents with his friends in and around the block of flats. Following a number of complaints by other residents, the housing association took possession action. She was refused legal aid, lost her case and is now facing eviction.
Research based on an analysis of Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) case files found that two thirds of defendants had special needs or other specific problems. And interviews with clients from the Dundee Families Project, which is widely recognised for its success in tackling anti social behaviour, found that half the children had experienced abuse or neglect and more than half of the women had suffered domestic violence. Such evidence clearly indicates the limitations of crude enforcement-based initiatives in tackling the problem.
The CAB Service can see no merit in the government’s proposal to impose an HB sanction in cases of anti-social behaviour by tenants on low incomes. In the rest of this response we first detail our reasons for taking this view; we then go on to consider the particular problems raised by the two specific options proposed.
No evidence of effectiveness
The CAB Service has welcomed the Government’s general approach to policy making that it must be evidence-based and that “what counts is what works” (para 17). Yet no evidence has been produced to support the notion that HB sanctions will be effective in reducing anti- social behaviour. In contrast, the main justification for the proposals appears to be that they will “respond to people’s sense that it is profoundly unfair to provide continuing financial support for housing costs of people who behave without regard to their neighbours” (para 13). Whilst this response is understandable, the CAB Service does not consider that this alone provides a sufficient justification for this policy development.
The CAB Service considers that it is unlikely that HB sanctions would be an effective deterrent to anti social behaviour. The link between the penalty (removal of the benefit which is intended to pay the rent) and the crime (which may relate to a wide range of anti-social behaviour) is remote. The penalty also appears to bear little relationship to what is known about the causes of anti-social behaviour. To the extent that these relate to parents being unable to control their children or visitors, or to the unmet needs of people with mental health problems or with drug and alcohol problems, it seems unlikely that such a sanction will have any deterrent effect.
In addition, the shock effect of an HB sanction is likely to be reduced because poor standards of HB administration in many parts of the country mean that for many tenants it is not uncommon to suddenly find HB reduced or even ceasing altogether. The impact will also be muted by the fact that most tenants, particularly in the social rented sector have their HB paid direct to the landlord. They will not therefore experience a visible reduction in their cash in hand, and the impact will not be felt until their landlord takes action to recover the arrears. Certainly it seems highly unlikely that sanctions will provide the speedy remedy to the problem which victims so crucially need.
Undesirable consequences
Whilst it is unlikely that sanctions will have the effect of reducing the anti social behaviour, other less desirable consequences will be inevitable. Withdrawing housing benefit will lead to anti-social tenants accruing rent arrears, and, ultimately, their eviction. The consultation paper suggests that that the level of the sanction would be such that the resultant arrears would be unlikely to result in eviction. However CAB evidence detailed in a report published earlier this year indicates that many social landlords move very quickly to take possession action, especially if the level of arrears is rising. And where a tenant is already subject to a suspended possession order requiring them to pay the current rent plus a fixed figure off the arrears, then any reduction in payment can immediately trigger possession action.
Where tenants are evicted, they will then face difficulty in obtaining alternative tenancies and are likely to find themselves in insecure temporary accommodation, perhaps staying with friends or relatives in overcrowded conditions, or even sleeping rough. Such an environment is unlikely to reduce their anti-social behaviour, and their new neighbours will suffer the consequences.
Moreover the sanction and its consequences would affect all the members of the household, including children, even if only one member of the household was the perpetrator. Yet when the idea of HB sanctions was first raised in the 2000 Housing Green paper, it was stated “Above all we would need to ensure that the innocent families of unruly tenants did not suffer”.
Regulatory Impact Assessment
As a result of this absence of any evidence base that HB sanctions would result in a decrease in anti-social behaviour, the consultation paper’s Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment runs the risk of being seriously misleading. The impact assessment details the undoubted benefits which would arise from “more effective action on anti-social behaviour”, including an improved quality of life for tenants and residents, freeing up landlords’ resources and decreasing the security and other costs which individuals have to incur. However these benefits would only occur if the HB sanction were effective in reducing anti-social behaviour. On the other hand the costs of the policy, in terms of pressure on the courts and costs on local authorities and landlords, would apply whether or not the policy was effective.
Unnecessary
As the consultation paper acknowledges, there is already a wide range of tools available to tackle anti-social behaviour including ASBOs, acceptable behaviour contracts, injunctions, and action by local authorities under the Crime and Disorder Act and using their environmental health powers to tackle statutory nuisances such as noise. There is also growing evidence of the effectiveness of these measures. Further measures are being introduced in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill currently in Parliament. In addition the draft Housing Bill includes proposals for selective licensing of private landlords, which will extend the remedies available in the private rented sector.
Until these new initiatives have had time to bed down, the CAB Service can see no justification for adding further remedies, especially where the cost benefit analysis is so unfavourable.
Impact on local service providers
Where an HB sanction is imposed, landlords will be immediately affected by the loss of rental income stream. The sums are likely to have to be written off, as, without housing benefit, the household is unlikely to be in a position to repay.
A further consequence is that some social landlords may be deterred from initiating or supporting action for anti-social behaviour because this may result in a housing benefit sanction, and therefore a loss of revenue.
The measures will inevitably impact on the housing benefit system, already suffering from huge administrative problems. They will cut across the Government’s reform agenda to introduce a simpler and more transparent HB system. Alterations will be required to software, and there will be the implementation of new procedures and staff training. In addition housing benefit staff are likely to be at the sharp end in having to deal with the complaints from claimants when they discover their HB has been reduced.
Valuable housing officer time will be taken up in trying to recover the arrears and in taking possession action. There will also be increased pressure on the already over burdened county courts, resulting in increased delays for all litigants.
There is already growing concern at the level of possession orders by social landlords. These have increased significantly in recent years and CAB evidence shows that many social landlords move quickly to start possession action as soon as arrears begin to rise. There are strong reasons for action to reverse this trend, given that households unable to sustain a social housing tenancy are even less likely to be able to cope in the private sector.
Private landlords are likely to become even more reluctant to let to housing benefit claimants, thus adding to existing pressure on social housing lettings in many parts of the country.
Once the household is evicted, homelessness departments will be under duties – extended by the recent Homelessness Act – to undertake homelessness assessments and to provide temporary accommodation and appropriate advice and assistance to enable the household to find alternative accommodation. The option of a private sector tenancy will be highly unlikely if a benefit sanction has been imposed so it is likely that the authority will have to either rehouse or take any vulnerable members into care. Either course of action threatens to undermine any deterrent effect of the eviction itself.
A CAB in Essex reported a client who had suffered for over two years from the anti-social behaviour of a neighbouring family. When an anti-social behaviour order proved ineffective, the local authority moved the family, a member of whom has learning difficulties. However the disruptive behaviour continued at their new address.
Lack of consistency with other Government policy
The proposal conflicts with many key government policies. In particular withdrawal of a means-tested benefit will contribute to poverty amongst a group which is by definition already on a low income and, where there are children in the family, will undermine Government efforts to end child poverty. It will also feed directly into homelessness, in conflict with the welcome direction of the recent Homelessness Act, which focuses on homelessness prevention strategies. As a result, it will embed social exclusion and make initiatives to rehabilitate offenders and reduce re-offending more difficult.
The two options
The consultation paper outlines two options for imposing HB sanctions for anti- social behaviour.
Option 1: A court-based approach
Under the first option, the court would make a ‘declaration’ where a person is found guilty of anti-social behaviour (this would apply in civil actions as well proceedings in the criminal court). The declaration would be passed on to the DWP who would check whether the person is a Housing Benefit claimant and, if so, notify the local authority that a sanction could be applied. The local authority would be responsible for applying the sanction and for considering any mitigation on grounds of hardship (in which case a reduced rate of deduction could be applied). Decisions could be appealed to an independent tribunal (in the case of the sanction) or through the courts (against the declaration).
Option 2: An administrative sanction
The second option would involve a standalone administrative process. A local authority officer would be responsible for identifying cases of anti-social behaviour (this could include the behaviour of children or visitors as well as the tenant/claimant). Following an initial warning to the tenant, the consultation paper states that the tenant would receive support. If further anti-social behaviour takes place, the officer would be responsible for triggering the sanction. Again, the local authority would consider mitigation on grounds of hardship and there would be a right of appeal against the determination to an independent tribunal and against the application of the sanction to The Appeals Service.
The CAB Service considers that both the options proposed have serious drawbacks.
The court-based option would inevitably not be an early response to anti-social behaviour, and the absence of any warning procedure means that its deterrent effect would be limited. In addition it provides no opportunity to consider the details of the household’s circumstances and therefore the appropriateness of the penalty. It also breaches basic principles of natural justice as, where the perpetrator is a tenant, s/he is effectively punished twice for the same offence. And, as the regulatory impact assessment sets out, there would be additional costs for courts, prosecutors and applicants in civil trials.
Option two (the administrative sanction) overcomes some of the problems associated with the court-based option but creates others. Under this option the sanction could play more of a preventative role in that it would include the provision of a warning on the first offence. There is also the welcome proposal that tenants would receive advice and counselling to help deal with anti-social behaviour, and, where appropriate, the provision of appropriate support such as parenting classes or help with mental health, drug or alcohol problems. This is constructive although there is no recognition in the proposals of the fact that the demand for such services often considerably outstrips the supply, leaving vulnerable people having to wait unacceptably long periods without the support they need. The paper does not indicate that there will be any increase in resources such that anyone deemed to need this help would be offered this support immediately, before an HB sanction is considered.
A CAB in the West Midlands reported a client whose partner wanted help in coming off drugs. His GP said this was not the responsibility of GPs but gave him the details of a local project which offered help. However there was a four-month wait to get help.
A CAB in Dorset reported a client whose 13-year-old son needed urgent psychological help. Despite being placed on the emergency list, no help has been provided. He is physically violent to his mother and stepsister and has himself asked for help. In the previous five months social services have made referrals to the emergency child psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a family psychologist for mediation. None had yet resulted in an appointment.
A CAB in Kent reported a man with mental health, drug and alcohol problems who had been in prison several times during 2000/2001. Although he gets help with his problems when he is in prison, this ceases when he comes out. His father complained that it was awful that he is repeatedly sent back to prison rather than getting the help he needs in the community.
However Option 2 is in our view fundamentally flawed in that it gives local authority officers the discretion to determine the amount of Housing Benefit paid, without independent scrutiny, where they consider that anti-social behaviour has taken place. It allows a degree of local subjectivity, which is not appropriate in relation to a national means-tested social security benefit.
There is also a risk that local authorities will be inclined to use this tool at a relatively early stage in their procedures, because it does not require a referral to the court.
It would be likely to lead to a lack of consistency in approach across the country, as different local authorities adopted different policies and practices with regard to implementation. As a result tenants in neighbouring authorities could find that they had differing access to the housing benefit necessary to meet their rent paying responsibilities.
There would also be a perceived danger that local authorities which are also landlords might be influenced by their wider fiscal responsibilities as to how they exercised this discretion with regard to their own tenants, because of the impact of the sanction on rental income. This was always a key criticism made of the former HB Review Boards made up of local authority councillors, a structure which has now been abandoned. It would make no sense to introduce a new system which replicates this flaw at officer level.
Appeals
Both Options refer to the creation of a new independent tribunal, to deal with appeals against the application of the sanction by the HB service in Option 1 and the determination of anti-social behaviour in Option 2. It is regrettable that no details are provided regarding this new appeals system. It is indicated that the local authority will bear the cost of this; however it is obviously crucial that the tribunal is fully independent of the local authority involved in making the decision to be appealed, in order that it is Human Rights Act compliant.
A network of tribunals established for this limited purpose will create significant demands in terms of resources and training for what may in practice prove to be a relatively rarely exercised function.
Any new tribunal should be incorporated into the planned new single tribunal service and therefore operated to the core standards, which are put in place.
Conclusion
The CAB Service believes this proposal will make no contribution to the problem of tackling anti-social behaviour. On the other hand, it will inevitably result in an increase in poverty, rent arrears and homelessness. It will also impose significant burdens on public services. As such it is an example of a poor policy which only distracts from the urgent need to develop and implement measures which are effective in tackling anti-social behaviour. We would urge the Government to withdraw these proposals.
|
