NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE AUTHORITY
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
FINAL REPORT
November 2012
CONTENTS
1
FOREWORD ................................................................................. i
1.1
1.2
The Journey .................................................................................................... i
The Future ...................................................................................................... ii
2
SUMMARY ...................................................................................1
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................1
3.2
GLOSSARY.................................................................................................... 2
4
BACKGROUND ............................................................................2
4.1
4.2
SCRUTINY APPROACH ................................................................................ 2
TERMS OF REFERENCE .............................................................................. 3
5
FOCUS GROUPS.........................................................................3
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Purpose .......................................................................................................... 3
Selection Process ........................................................................................... 3
Location of Focus Groups .............................................................................. 4
Police Authority Attendance ........................................................................... 4
Key Findings from Focus Groups ................................................................... 4
Understanding the Focus Groups Context ..................................................... 6
Questions Arising from Focus Groups............................................................ 7
6
WRITTEN CASE STUDIES ..........................................................8
6.2
Case Study Methodology ............................................................................... 8
7
VICTIMS VERBAL EVIDENCE TO COMMITTEE .........................8
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
Case Study 1 - St Anns City ........................................................................... 9
Case Study 2 - Mansfield ............................................................................. 11
Case Study 3 - Mansfield ............................................................................. 13
Case Study 4 - Mansfield ............................................................................. 16
Case Study 5 - Mansfield ............................................................................. 18
Case Study 6 - City ...................................................................................... 20
8
DESKTOP RESEARCH – ASB TOOLS AND POWERS.............22
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
Existing and Future Tools and Powers ......................................................... 23
Private Rented.............................................................................................. 24
Local Authority - Noise ................................................................................. 26
Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ............................ 30
9
WRITTEN EVIDENCE ................................................................30
9.2
9.3
PERFORMANCE ......................................................................................... 30
POLICE ASB PROCEDURE ........................................................................ 31
10
PARTNERSHIPS ........................................................................33
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
Ashfield......................................................................................................... 34
Mansfield ...................................................................................................... 35
Broxtowe ...................................................................................................... 36
Bassetlaw ..................................................................................................... 37
Gedling ......................................................................................................... 38
City ............................................................................................................... 38
Rushcliffe...................................................................................................... 39
Newark & Sherwood ..................................................................................... 40
11
SITE VISITS – Vulnerable Victims Panels ..................................41
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
Gedling ......................................................................................................... 41
Mansfield ...................................................................................................... 43
Rushcliffe...................................................................................................... 44
Broxtowe ...................................................................................................... 46
City ............................................................................................................... 47
12
FINDINGS TO SCRUTINY QUESTIONS ....................................48
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7
12.8
12.9
12.10
12.11
Non Court Interventions................................................................................ 49
Evidence Gathering Capabilities .................................................................. 54
Speeding up the Evidence Gathering ........................................................... 59
Who Should Lead Neighbourly ASB ............................................................. 60
Better Support for Neighbourly ASB Victims ................................................ 63
Use of Surveillance Equipment .................................................................... 64
Training in ASB Tools and Powers ............................................................... 66
Housing Associations and Private Landlords ............................................... 67
Effectiveness of Partnership Working ........................................................... 70
Contribution of Health Organisations............................................................ 71
13
RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................75
APPENDIX A - Dealing with Anti-Social Individuals .............................79
APPENDIX B - Dealing with ASB in the Community ............................80
REFERENCES ....................................................................................81
1
FOREWORD
1.1
The Journey
1.1.1
As Chair of the Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Scrutiny Committee I am
pleased to commend this report to the Police Authority.
1.1.2
Between July and November 2012, five Members of the Police
Authority heard a range of evidence from Police Officers, Partners and
most importantly victims in respect of issues associated with antisocial
behaviour.
1.1.3
I am deeply grateful to Police officers and Partners and especially
victims who engaged with the scrutiny process sharing their candid
views and responding honestly to some challenging questions from
the Committee.
1.1.4
The findings of this scrutiny are that incidents of antisocial behaviour
have fallen significantly over recent years and victims’ satisfaction has
never been higher. This is clearly due to effective Partnership working
and neighbourhood policing.
1.1.5
Although it was not envisaged, the findings of the ASB Focus Groups
narrowed our focus to persistent ASB caused by neighbours. The
findings of this report should be considered within this context and not
construed as applicable to all types of antisocial behaviour.
1.1.6
Members were surprised to learn that the ASB behaviour of
neighbours only stopped when enforcement action at Court was taken.
Unlike ASB occurring in the public domain which is easier to monitor
and capture evidence, gathering evidence of neighbourly ASB proves
difficult suggesting that capabilities of Police and Partners is limited.
1.1.7
Evidence gathering is slow and this explains why ASB victims have
experienced problems over many years. Further complications are
also present because incidents of ASB cross civil and criminal
boundaries. Where there is joint partnership work i.e. the ‘twin track’
approach as adopted in Nottingham City, the civil v criminal
boundaries appear to have been overcome. This joint working means
that there is knowledge of both ASB tools and powers across civil and
criminal law and overcomes staff working in silos.
1.1.8
The Police and Partners appear to use a range of surveillance
equipment and operations to gather evidence for ASB occurring in
neighbourhood ASB ‘hot spots’ or public space environments to good
effect, but there is limited evidence of this approach being used to
tackle persistent neighbourly ASB where there are only a few victims.
1.1.9
Partnership working is effective but the Vulnerable Persons Panels
appear to have a greater focus on safeguarding issues as opposed to
tackling ASB committed against vulnerable victims.
i
1.2
1.1.10
The lack of action by Housing Associations and Private Landlords has
led to ASB victims suffering for many years. In addition, Police and
other Partnership resources continue to be requested time and time
again for incidents which are not within their powers of control.
1.1.11
Finally, issues of mental health in both victims and offenders are
significant. The contribution of Health organisations especially Mental
Health is inconsistent and a major issue in tackling ASB.
The Future
1.2.1
Our intention was to take a victim centred focus and use identified key
issues arising from Focus Groups to shape our terms of reference.
1.2.2
The findings of this scrutiny allowed Members to consider possible
proposals for plugging the identified gaps in service provision. At the
heart of our recommendations is the recognition that neighbourly ASB
cases need to be resolved much quicker. If Court action is the point at
which the neighbours ASB is stopped then all steps which lead to this
outcome need to be improved.
1.2.3
The cost of these persistent neighbourly ASB cases being prolong is
huge not only to the victim, but demand on Police response call outs
and healthcare support to victims.
1.2.4
If the lack of evidence is a barrier then new ways to secure it should
be considered and utilised. If Housing Associations or Private
Landlords are dragging their feet on taking action, then in the interest
of saving future demand through repeat calls for service, Police and
Partners could be more proactive in engaging them.
1.2.5
Members of this Scrutiny Committee may not have all of the answers
and Partners and practitioners may have deeper understanding of
some issues but we would ask that the key issues identified in this
scrutiny which are rooted in feedback from the victims be seriously
considered so that new ways of working can be adopted to improve
the lives of ASB victims.
1.2.6
I commend this report together with 32 specific recommendations for
consideration for the Police Authority and wider Partnerships.
Signed:
Ms Melanie Futer
Chair of Scrutiny Committee (Antisocial Behaviour)
Independent Member of Nottinghamshire Police Authority
ii
2
3
SUMMARY
2.1.1
On the 14th December 2011, the Police Authority approved the
creation of a Scrutiny Committee with the power to review areas
agreed by the Police Authority. Between July and November 2012 five
Members of the Police Authority supported by the Performance and
Policing Policy Officer planned and undertook a scrutiny of antisocial
behaviour within Nottinghamshire.
2.1.2
The Scrutiny Committee received oral and written evidence from both
Police and Partners and victims on a range of ASB issues. It also
undertook various site visits to obtain evidence through observations.
2.1.3
The Scrutiny Committee focused on victims experiences, Partnership
working and best practice. Ten scrutiny questions pertaining to
neighbourly ASB arose from the three ASB victim Focus Groups which
were used by Members to obtain further evidence and test the validity
of victims views.
2.1.4
The Scrutiny Committee concludes that in the main the views of the
victims attending the Focus Groups are substantiated.
2.1.5
Having considered the issues from a number of perspectives,
Members have identified a number of gaps in service provision and
makes 32 recommendations which if implemented should make both
Nottinghamshire Police and Partners more effective in tackling
neighbourly antisocial behaviour.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3.1.1
3.1.2
Members of the Scrutiny Committee would like to thank victims of ASB
who attended the three focus groups meetings especially those who
went on to give evidence to Members during the Committee meeting.
Members would also like to thank:
•
Victim Support for facilitating the three victim focus groups and
providing evidence of key issues.
•
Members of Nottinghamshire Police and Partners from each of the
eight Authorities for their contributions to this process.
•
The Deputy Chief Constable (DCC) and Assistant Chief Constable
(ACC) Territorial (Local Policing) of Nottinghamshire Police for
taking a leading role throughout the Scrutiny process in ensuring
that staff cooperated fully with Members in terms of agreeing to
site visits and allowing staff to attend Scrutiny Committees.
Finally, the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee would like to thank Kam
Sandhu, Philip Hodgson, Alan Street, Councillor John Clarke and
Philip Gilbert (Officer) for supporting her as Members of the
Committee in this pioneering victim focused scrutiny.
1
3.2
GLOSSARY
3.2.1
There are a number of acronyms in this report which may require
further explanation:
101
ASB
ASBO
CCTV
CPI
CPN
CPO
CPS
DEFRA
FIP
HA
IPCC
LA
MAPPA
MARAC
MP
PACE
PCSO
PCT
RIPA
RSPCA
VPP
VS
National Non Emergency Police Telephone Number
Antisocial Behaviour
Antisocial Behaviour Order
Closed Circuit Television
Crime Prevention Injunction
Community Protection Notice
Criminal Behaviour Order
Crown Prosecution Service
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Family Intervention Project
Housing Association
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Local Authority
Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference
Member of Parliament
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Police Community Support Officer
Primary Care Trust
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Vulnerable Persons Panel
Victim Support
4
BACKGROUND
4.1
SCRUTINY APPROACH
4.1.1
On the 14th December 2011, Nottinghamshire Police Authority
approved the creation of a Scrutiny Committee with the power to
review areas agreed by the Police Authority. 1
4.1.2
Although the scrutiny process is fully embedded in Local Authorities
across the country, this is the second time that Nottinghamshire Police
Authority has incorporated the process into its assurance framework.
Inevitably, the process is more intrusive and requires the full
cooperation of the agencies concerned; however the outcome with full
support from Partners will lead to greater public assurance and better
services for victims of antisocial behaviour living and visiting
Nottinghamshire.
4.1.3
The Police Authority has responsibility for ensuring the maintenance of
an efficient and effective Police Force in Nottinghamshire. The
Scrutiny Committee was established to enable the Authority to
effectively carry out an in depth scrutiny of key areas of policing
activity as set out in the Authority Business and Policing Plan to
ensure that the Force is meeting the needs of Nottinghamshire.
2
4.2
TERMS OF REFERENCE
4.2.1
On the 13th July 2012, the Antisocial Behaviour Scrutiny Committee
consisting of five Police Authority Members, held its inaugural meeting
to discuss and agree its terms of reference 2.
4.2.2
The Terms of Reference detail the approach that the Scrutiny
Committee took:
4.2.3
•
Obtaining evidence directly from recent victims of antisocial
behaviour through Focus Groups.
•
Receiving a presentation from the Force on the new ASB
procedure.
•
Analysing the feedback, creating and completing eight victim Case
Study questionnaires; requesting reviews by the Force and
relevant authorities.
•
Hearing verbal evidence from ASB victims at Scrutiny Committee.
•
Undertaking site visits to observe how Police and Partners support
and respond to the ASB problems faced by vulnerable victims.
•
Invite Partners to a Partnership scrutiny focused Committee to
hear evidence of Case Studies where ASB has been successfully
tackled to identify best practice.
•
Undertaking desktop research to explore the range of tools and
powers available to all Partners involved in tackling ASB. Review
Case Studies against these known powers to identify if there are
any gaps in their utilisation.
These terms of reference have now been fully completed.
5
FOCUS GROUPS
5.1
Purpose
5.2
5.1.1
It was agreed by the Chair of the Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) Scrutiny
Committee that in order to determine the terms of reference and focus
of the scrutiny, that a victim centred approach should be taken.
5.1.2
In this respect, Victim Support was asked to organise and facilitate a
number of Focus Groups in key locations across the county of
Nottinghamshire.
Selection Process
5.2.1
Victim Support used their own records to make contact with victims
and aimed for at least 30 people at each event. No particular group or
individuals were specifically targeted and so those who did attend did
so under their own volition. However, despite their best efforts, only 29
victims in total actually attended.
3
5.3
Location of Focus Groups
5.3.1
5.4
•
29th May 2012 – Mansfield (6pm to 8.30pm)
[8 victims]
•
30th May 2012 – Nottingham City (6pm to 8pm)
[8 victims]
•
31st May 2012 – Worksop (2pm to 4.30pm)
[13 victims]
Police Authority Attendance
5.4.1
5.5
Between the 29th and 31st May 2012 three Focus Groups were held
with victims who had suffered ASB. Victim Support organised and
facilitated the following events:
The Chair of the ASB Scrutiny Committee together with the
Performance and Policing Policy officer attended the Focus Groups as
observers. Notes were taken by both Victim Support and the Police
Authority and later analysed.
Key Findings from Focus Groups
5.5.1
Victims who participated in these Focus Groups were predominantly
white, elderly, and female and disabled who had suffered repeat
victimisation over many years (on average once every three weeks
over 3.5 years).
5.5.2
In all three Focus Group meetings, Members observed that as victims
told their stories, a number of them became very emotional, crying and
needing to leave the room before being able to recompose
themselves. There were others who were highly emotional raising their
voices almost in despair of their circumstances and lack of hope.
5.5.3
Despite this, victims were generally satisfied with the Police response
and support from agencies although almost half of victims only sought
help from the Police.
5.5.4
Although victims were generally satisfied with the Police response
there were aspects which they had concerns about i.e. lack of
competence, responsiveness and ineffective solutions.
5.5.5
The range of problems cited by victims included noise i.e. loud music,
foul language, shouting; property i.e. break-ins, damage to fences,
windows or cars; personal i.e. rotten food through post box,
threatening telephone calls, personal assaults and harassment.
5.5.6
In the majority of cases the ASB was caused by the victims’ immediate
neighbour. Members noted that there were more long standing
problems unresolved with victims living next to offenders renting from
Private Landlords or Housing Associations.
5.5.7
There was usually a trigger incident which was a catalyst for further
offences by the neighbour e.g. damage caused by neighbours dog,
boundary disputes, guttering leaks, overgrown trees, or rubbish
4
stockpiled in front garden. Often problems escalated when the victim
confronted the offender.
5.5.8
Victims stated that the ASB had an adverse impact on their lives
primarily in respect of ill-health with some victims feeling suicidal and
many suffering long term depression. Others desperately wanted to
move house with one victim taking steps to buy the neighbours house
to ensure that he controlled who lived there. Others explained that the
lack of hope and longsuffering had caused them to take action
themselves which had brought them into conflict with the law. Many
cited lack of sleep, feeling house bound and feelings of hopelessness.
5.5.9
Members observed a number of victims who were clearly emotional
and suffering health issues. They argued that this had been caused by
the ASB suffered over many years.
5.5.10
There were a number of victims citing ‘care in the community’ as a
source of the problem where victims perceived that schizophrenics
had been placed without providing the necessary supervision. As
might be expected, other offenders were those who clearly had drug
and alcohol problems.
5.5.11
Victims’ views of the Police were very mixed. Many explained that
some Police Officers and PCSOs (Police and Community Support
Officer) were exceptional but others were not. When questioned,
victims explained that the exceptional officers did not always solve the
problem but made them feel better because of their caring attitude.
5.5.12
Victims’ comments in respect of their local council were not very
complimentary. There were some positive examples of effective action
but in the main victims felt completely let down. There was
overwhelming support for Victim Support staff at all three Focus
Groups. They did not help solve the problem necessarily but they
helped victims through their difficulties.
5.5.13
Victims were especially critical of Housing Associations and Private
Landlords because they failed to deal effectively with their complaints
and had no consideration of who they were placing in their homes.
Victims seemed to think that receiving rent was the main priority and
failed in their responsibilities to challenge the behaviour of their
tenants. They also felt that there was limited legal recourse with such
landlords.
5.5.14
When questioned about barriers preventing their problems being
solved, victims cited the lack of evidence as the main reason. They felt
that the onus was on them to obtain the evidence which they had great
difficulty securing and this is why the problems continued for so long.
There were only a few examples where either the Police or Local
Authorities took any proactive surveillance work and given the
importance of securing evidence Members found this surprising.
5.5.15
Although Victims seemed to question the lack of legislation as a
barrier, with regard to the type of problems being cited, Members felt
5
that it was more a case of lack of knowledge in respect of the range of
ASB tools and powers available to Police and Partners.
5.6
5.5.16
Victims were critical of officers who turned up to deal with new
episodes of their ongoing ASB problem to learn that the officer had no
local knowledge of the previous incidents. This meant that on every
occasion they had to repeat all of the previous incidents which added
to their stress.
5.5.17
When questioned about what worked, overwhelmingly the only
intervention which brought a stop to the offenders’ behaviour was a
Court Order. Given that this depended on securing evidence, many
cases took years before victims were able to secure sufficient
evidence to satisfy a Court that a Court Order was necessary.
5.5.18
Victims felt that a swift response to their call led to evidence being
obtained and visits a few days later seemed a waste of time.
5.5.19
Victims who attended these three Focus Groups probably reflect the
more vulnerable members of our communities. Their willingness to
participate in these Focus Groups and share their experiences, and
with regard to what they said and the way they said it, gave Members
a sense that they were still seeking solutions to their problems and
desperately wanting things to change.
Understanding the Focus Groups Context
5.6.1
Some of the Victims comments were very critical of the Police and
authorities and Members were mindful that they were only hearing one
perspective albeit the most import one – the victim.
5.6.2
Victim Support (VS) facilitated these Focus Groups and have
subsequently provided a context on the findings of the Focus Group.
For example, despite the media stereotype of ASB being committed by
youths in the street, the main finding was that neighbours are the
predominant perpetrators arising from these Focus Groups. Clearly,
outdoor nuisance attracts wider media coverage because it impacts on
more people and is more visible.
5.6.3
Victim Support provides support to ASB victims on a daily basis and
well placed to understand the issues at hand. VS have explained that
there may be good reason why victims suffering neighbourly ASB
decided to attend the Focus Groups. The following may be some
reasons:
•
Victims who suffer ASB caused by a neighbour are likely to have
far more long term and emotional impact - leading to the kind of
distress observed during the Focus Group meetings.
•
It's very personal unlike ASB which occurs generally in the street.
•
They live next door so victims are not going to move on or move
away and in any event are likely to be difficult to re-home.
6
5.6.4
•
The problems cited may not have started as ASB so victims may
have decided to let it continue for a long while before reporting it or
trying to do anything about it. There are similarities here with
incidents of domestic abuse where victims on average allow
incidents to go unreported up to 35 times before taking action.
•
The problems may not have started as criminal behaviour so
unlikely to attract attention of anyone else including Police.
•
Groups of youths causing ASB can be asked to move on and in
any event youths get older and leave home eventually.
•
When it's a neighbour its personal there's 'always two sides' so
victims may fear not being believed.
•
Because it only happens to you (unlike in the open on a street)
there's no one else to back you up so you're very isolated if you've
no support.
Victim Support further explains:
“People feeling isolated, lonely and vulnerable have had their
confidence and self esteem worn down and so are unlikely to call the
press if they have some nagging (but unfounded) doubt that they may
be partly to blame. That may be the reason why they all found the
focus groups useful - finally they have proof it's not them and they
aren't alone”.
5.7
Questions Arising from Focus Groups
5.7.1
Of all the matters discussed, and based on the victims’ comments
alone, the following questions were developed to help Members during
the scrutiny process to focus on the most critical aspects arising from
these Focus Groups:
1) How effective are ‘non court’ interventions in resolving neighbourly
incidents of ASB?
2) What evidence gathering capabilities are in place with Police,
Local Authorities and other agencies to secure evidence to ensure
that incidents of neighbourly ASB are tackled speedily?
3) What can be done to speed up the evidence gathering process?
4) With regard to the needs of the victim, are the Police the most
appropriate agency to lead on tackling incidents of neighbourly
ASB?
5) What more can be done to support victims of neighbourly ASB
incidents?
6) What technological equipment is available to Police and Partners
to tackle neighbourly ASB e.g. surveillance equipment or similar?
7
7) How do the Police and other Partner organisations in dealing with
ASB equip their frontline staff to learn about their ‘tools and
powers’ available to them and Partners both now and the future
(both civil and criminal)?
8) What action is taken (or can be) by Housing Associations and
Private Landlords to resolve neighbours suffering ASB?
9) How effective are multi-agency tasking and Partnership
arrangements for tackling repeat and vulnerable victims of ASB?
10) What contribution do health organisations or health professionals
make to resolving issues of neighbourly ASB?
5.7.2
6
6.2
WRITTEN CASE STUDIES
6.1.1
Members were mindful that although there was consistency with a
number of themes recurring in all three Focus Groups, that in order to
triangulate the findings there would be benefit in undertaking nine
detailed Case Studies (three from each Focus Group) and using the
findings of the analysis and questions to develop a suitable
questionnaire.
6.1.2
The completed written Case Studies were used by Members during
the Scrutiny Committee to ask victims questions concerning their
experiences.
Case Study Methodology
6.2.1
7
Answers to these questions are detailed in Section 12 ‘Findings to
Scrutiny Questions’.
Victims of ASB who attended the Focus Groups were written to and
invited to take part in these Case Studies. Partnership support was
sought and obtained from Nottingham City Community Protection and
the Force Research Department and officers from these departments
met with victims and obtained a detailed synopsis of their ASB
problems using the same questionnaire.
VICTIMS VERBAL EVIDENCE TO COMMITTEE
7.1.1
Although the intention was to hear evidence from nine victims who had
taken part in the Case Studies (3 from each Focus Group), in the end
only six victims were able to attend and provide oral evidence.
7.1.2
Some of the information shared by victims has been summarised and
generalised to avoid identifying particular individuals or organisations
that have not had the opportunity to give their perspective.
7.1.3
In all cases, victims were extremely complimentary of Victim Support
although one victim had only recently been informed of the service.
8
One particular Police Officer was specifically named by Victims as
being enthusiastic and empathetic to their situations and took the
necessary enforcement action. There were other Police Officers
named who were criticised for failing to take any action.
7.2
7.1.4
Most of the victims were emotional as they gave evidence, some
started to cry as they retold their experiences and some were clearly
angry and frustrated. All were hoping that the Police Authority would
be able to influence changes for the better.
7.1.5
Many victims brought with them thick folders full of diary notes
detailing incidents over the many years. Members noted these records
but it was not within their terms of reference to review or respond to
specific incidents detailed.
7.1.6
Prior to giving their verbal evidence, victims had been interviewed and
notes of these interviews were written up and sent to the Police for
comment. In order to triangulate accounts, the Case Studies are
presented from each perspective i.e. victim and Police.
Case Study 1 - St Anns City
VICTIMS PERSPECTIVE
7.2.1
This victim did not take part in the written Case Studies choosing
instead to attend the Committee meeting in person. She told Members
that at the time of the problems she lived alone as an owner occupier
of a house located within St Anns. She has since sold the house with
reluctance and lives in another part of the Conurbation.
7.2.2
She informed Members that her problems were caused by her
immediate neighbour who lived in Housing Association
accommodation and were both alcoholics, drug addicts and apparently
mentally impaired which attracted persons of similar ilk and this led to
noise and bad behaviour in the early hours of the morning as they all
partied.
7.2.3
The victim informed Members that she continually complained to the
Housing Association (HA) who gave her log sheets to complete which
she did for a number of years but accused the HA of taking no action
against their tenants. She said that despite clear breaches of tenancy
agreement, the HA told her that they could do nothing because of their
tenants ‘Human Rights’.
7.2.4
She suffered the same problem for 12 years and the continual loss of
sleep, inhalation of drug vapour (which came through the shared air
vents), fear of reprisal all affected her health and changed her lifestyle
in that she never left her home in the evenings or night time. Her
problems were only solved when she moved house and apparently the
same tenants continue to live at the same address.
9
7.2.5
She stated that the Police did install CCTV (Closed Circuit Television)
but this failed to capture any evidence. Enforcement action was taken
by the Police but this was for unrelated assault matters.
7.2.6
She did call the Police who attended and advised her neighbours
about the noise but because they were unable to think rationally
through drink or drugs, their behaviour and the noise continued
unabated. The Police did report incidents to the HA and were told that
the tenants would be moved shortly but this never happened. She also
said that Environmental Health failed to take any action regarding the
noise complaints.
7.2.7
The victim stated that other neighbours were frightened to make
complaints and the fact that she had, caused her further problems.
POLICE PERSPECTIVE
7.2.8
The Police have records since January 2000 which include six ASB
incidents and one report of criminal damage. The nature of the reports
which occurred in the early hours of the morning included: loud
arguments outside the victims home by drunk neighbours; rear ground
floor window broken caused by football from neighbours child; loud
music coming from neighbours over long periods of time and a smell
of drugs.
7.2.9
The Police response to these incidents included visits and warnings to
turn the music down, provided a cannabis warning to occupant and
confiscation; investigation of criminal damage proving to be accidental
and referrals to the relevant Housing Association for noise complaints.
7.2.10
The Police report that noise complaints continued when the victim
moved out and another victim moved in.
7.2.11
Nottingham Community Protection did not receive any referrals from
the victim although they did investigate noise complaints from another
of the victim’s neighbours about the same offenders.
7.2.12
In response, noise recording equipment was used in May 2012 but this
failed to capture any evidence of noise generated from offender’s
house.
7.2.13
The HA’s Senior ASB Officer did take action to tackle the noise
problems caused by the offending neighbour. The officer witnessed
the noise first hand and despite warnings, this failed to stop the
offenders causing noise.
7.2.14
The HA has therefore served a Notice Seeking Possession on the
offenders (their tenants) for the ongoing noise complaints. In addition,
following a directions hearing in the County Court in August 2012 a full
possession trial is scheduled for late October.
10
7.2.15
It is reported that the victim in this case (having moved out) has
declined to make a statement but the HA will use her log sheets as
part of the evidence.
SUMMARY
7.3
7.2.16
In summary, the victim perceives that her problems were prolonged by
the lack of action by Environmental Health and the Housing
Association. She feels that the evidence she obtained through diary
sheets did not lead to any enforcement action. Her 12 year problems
were only solved when she chose to move out.
7.2.17
The Police were not the lead agency and the lack of proactive action
by HA and Environmental Health meant that the Police were
continually called out. Despite warnings by the Police the noise
continued.
7.2.18
The Police report that action is now being taken by the HA who are
using the evidence logs made by the victim.
7.2.19
Both Police and victim agree that the first ASB/noise reports started 12
years ago. Although it is noted that the HA is now seeking to evict the
offenders, it is difficult to understand why it has taken 12 years.
7.2.20
It is uncertain why Nottingham Community Protection does not have
any records of noise complaints by this victim and raises questions
about the Police referral system.
7.2.21
The Police were called and attended all calls by the victim which were
predominantly noise generated by neighbours who failed to respond to
Police advice.
7.2.22
The Offenders are now at risk of eviction and even prior warnings by
the HA has failed to curb their behaviour.
7.2.23
This being the case, it seems that HA enforcement action needs to be
much swifter and this will reduce the numerous Police call outs and
more importantly reduce the time ASB is suffered by victims.
7.2.24
It is in the Police interest to influence the HA to take action much
sooner otherwise they will continue to be called out time and time
again.
Case Study 2 - Mansfield
VICTIMS PERSPECTIVE
7.3.1
This victim lived with her husband in their own semi detached home in
Mansfield.
7.3.2
She informed Members that her problems were caused by her
immediate female neighbour who lived in Housing Association
11
accommodation who was an alcoholic, a self harmer with apparent
mental health issues. Despite these personal problems there did not
appear to be any social services supporting her.
7.3.3
Typical problems included noise, objects being thrown onto her
conservatory and threats made when challenged as well as making
false counter allegations about the victim to the Police. This ongoing
problem deterred relatives from visiting.
7.3.4
Without any evidence the Police were unable to establish the facts and
the victim felt disbelieved and treated as a suspect as opposed to a
victim and this led to her taking a polygraph lie detection test at her
own expense to help persuade authorities that they she was telling the
truth. Furthermore, the victim paid for CCTV to be installed only to be
accused of spying.
7.3.5
The victim stated that she was hesitant to call the Police and never
used the ‘999’ system although her neighbour did so to make false
allegations.
7.3.6
As with the first Case Study, the victim informed Members that she
continually complained to the Housing Association (HA) who gave her
log sheets to complete which she did for a number of years but the HA
took no action against their tenant despite clear breaches of her
tenancy agreement. One of the reasons given was because their
tenant was pregnant.
7.3.7
The HA did provide a recording device but it was ineffective as by the
time the victim had switched it on, the noise had stopped. The victim
suggested that a more sophisticated device that recorded 24/7 would
have been more effective.
7.3.8
She suffered the same problem for 12 years on a daily basis. A
Mediation a meeting was arranged and attended by both parties but
this failed to stop the ASB. The only time the behaviour stopped was
when her neighbour was arrested and taken to Court for threatening
behaviour (a criminal matter). Shortly afterwards the HA moved her to
another property (a new house) around the corner.
7.3.9
This victim told Members that she felt the Police should have taken
enforcement action sooner, that Police Officers also appeared to take
abuse from her neighbour as she swore at them and this gave her the
impression that the Police were frightened.
POLICE PERSPECTIVE
7.3.10
a
The Force report receiving 46 calls between 2010 and 2012 in respect
of noise and ASB related issues by her neighbour who also made 14
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HomeAndCommunity/WhereYouLive/NoiseNuisanceAndLitter/DG_195585
Disputes with neighbours could involve arguments over things like noise, planning permission, fences or
high hedges. Find out your options for solving a neighbour dispute, like mediation, and where to get help.
Also, learn what a statutory nuisance is and how to deal with it
12
cross allegation calls. They acknowledge that issues went back 10
years.
7.3.11
The Police report that Partners were involved in the case and that the
neighbour was often seen in drink and since she has a 4 year old child
she was considered vulnerable.
7.3.12
Despite its installation numerous times, the Police and Council report
that no substantiating evidence was found from the noise monitoring
equipment by either party, nor was evidence found in relation to other
allegations.
7.3.13
In June 2011, the Council met with the victim to discuss a further
complaint of noise which was not considered statutory noise nuisance
but, from the allegations made, harassment was considered more
appropriate and was then reporting to the Police (a criminal matter).
Again, further installation of sound recording equipment failed to
capture any evidence.
7.3.14
The Council undertook house to house enquiries and although
residents made verbal complaints regarding the offending neighbour
they were unwilling to give official statements.
7.3.15
In January 2012 the neighbour was convicted of a public order criminal
offence and given a restraining order with conditions. The conviction
gave the Housing Association the power to repossess the offender’s
property and this influenced the offender to move into a private let one
month later in February 2012. It is unknown if she caused further ASB
with new neighbours.
SUMMARY
7.4
7.3.16
In summary, it seems that this victim’s problems were prolonged by
the lack of action by the Housing Association. Again, even where
evidence was obtained through diary sheets, no enforcement action
was taken until a criminal conviction was secured. The Police were not
the lead agency and the lack of evidence (primarily noise) meant that
the Police were continually called out.
7.3.17
This case was only resolved when the offender moved out, this was
only triggered after a Court conviction. Although technological
equipment was deployed it was either ineffective in securing evidence
or the level of noise captured considered not statutory nuisance.
Case Study 3 - Mansfield
VICTIMS PERSPECTIVE
7.4.1
This victim has lived with his wife in a privately owned detached house
in Mansfield for 20 years.
13
7.4.2
Their problems started in 2008 and are still ongoing with their
neighbours who also own their house having moved there with their
children in 2006. In addition, three other neighbouring families are all
friendly with each other and ‘close ranks’ with the victim’s immediate
neighbour.
7.4.3
The problems started when the victim’s wife asked the neighbours
children to play their football on the field nearby as the ball was hitting
their fence and causing a noise and possible damage. However, the
problems escalated with more children playing on the road (up to 21 at
one time) with associated noise through skateboarding, riding
scooters, throwing stones and golf balls which caused minor damage
to fencing.
7.4.4
When told, the victim’s male neighbour was abusive, unresponsive,
and unsympathetic and from that point the victim’s problems escalated
with children being actively encouraged to play football and other
games on the street outside sometimes until 1am. Further problems
included dog faeces being put through the shared fence, children
calling the victim Nazi’s, and even intentional noise caused by drunken
neighbours.
7.4.5
Subsequently, damage was caused to the victim’s front door lock by
unknown offenders, damage caused to the garden gate, garden
ornaments and parked cars to such an extent that family and friends
stopped visiting the victim. CCTV would have been a useful detection
and possible deterrent to these incidents.
7.4.6
The victim told the Committee that for four years despite his
complaints to the Police and local council no action was taken against
his neighbours. The Council told him that it was a Police matter and
the Police told him that they needed solid evidence. The victim
reported that there was one occasion where a file was considered by
the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) but they decided to take no
action. The victim told Members that this lack of action by local Police
appeared to give a ‘green light’ for continued ASB.
7.4.7
Due to a lack of support, the victim sought to secure his own evidence
and protect his property by having CCTV installed at a cost of £1,500.
He also purchased body cams so he and his wife could capture any
abuse by his neighbours and instructed a solicitor to act on their behalf
who wrote to the victim’s neighbour.
7.4.8
Neighbours complained to the Police that due to the installation of
CCTV their privacy was being invaded and this resulted in the victim
being advised by the Police and Council that they may be breaching
the Data Protection Act and Human Rights Act. However, the victim
obtained legal advice 3 which provided him with the necessary
14
assurances that provided the cameras were not sighted on other
neighbours’ properties he was within his rights b.
7.4.9
Following a complaint to the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints
Commission) the victim explained how a Police Inspector from another
area came and dealt with his complaint by writing to all the neighbours
pointing out the possible offences under the Highways Act. He said
that this Inspector did more in one week than local Police did in four
years.
7.4.10
Although, this stopped the problems for three months they started
again and have continued ever since. The victim told Members that he
had captured over 60 incidents on CCTV and has sent 22 DVDs of
evidence to the Police and has heard nothing. He also said that the
local Police now refuse to attend his house due to the presence of
CCTV and fears that they are being recorded.
7.4.11
The victim told Members that he had totally lost confidence in the
Police and Local Authorities and is uncertain how this can be restored.
He stressed that the Police lacked knowledge of the law and had no
sense of justice.
POLICE PERSPECTIVE
b
c
7.4.12
The Police are aware of this case and report receiving 35 complaints
from May 2010 although they acknowledge that there have been
issues for 18 months prior to this.
7.4.13
The Police account appears to suggest that many of the victim’s
complaints are more to do with a lack of tolerance by the victim as
other neighbours do not consider children playing football in the street
to be antisocial behaviour.
7.4.14
One issue reported by the neighbours was an allegation that a noise
device called a Mosquito c which emits a high frequency sound had
been installed by the victim and was causing a nuisance.
7.4.15
The Partnership sought to ensure that the local park was devoid of
dog mess as this was a reason why children were reluctant to play
football there.
7.4.16
The Police account shows that attempts were made to resolve the
issues through mediation (declined by all parties), letters were sent to
neighbours, the case was reviewed by Partners and this location even
According to the web site www.yourrights.org.uk, The Human Rights Act 1998 only binds public bodies, and
not individuals, so there still is no general right to protection from invasion of privacy by other individuals in
society. This means that you cannot sue your neighbour, or a private company, for invading your privacy.
http://www.mosquito-ni.com/
“Acclaimed by the Police forces of many areas of the United Kingdom, the Mosquito Anti-Vandal System has
been described as “the most effective tool in our fight against anti social behaviour”. Shop keepers around
the world have purchased the device to move along unwanted gatherings of teenagers and anti social
youths. Railway companies have placed the device to discourage youths from spraying graffiti on their trains
and the walls of stations”
15
formed part of the Force’s Operation Animism patrol plan. Despite this,
the issues have not been resolved and the case has been closed as
complaints have stopped. However, this does not mean the problem
has been resolved.
7.4.17
The local Police prepared a file of all available statements and
evidence from the victim’s CCTV footage but the Crown Prosecution
Service (CPS) decided that there was insufficient evidence to
substantiate any prosecutions indicating that some of the calls may
amount to wasting Police time.
SUMMARY
7.5
7.4.18
In summary, this case highlights issues of possible intolerance,
difficulties of obtaining independent evidence when neighbours close
ranks with each other; the need to rebuild community cohesion, the
consequences of inaction and inconsistency in terms of Police
enforcement action. Even where the victim believes he has obtained
solid CCTV evidence a review of the footage did not persuade the
CPS to prosecute and suggests that guidance and advice in the
sighting of cameras may have been helpful.
7.4.19
Frustrated with the Police, the victim has sought to prevent and detect
offences of ASB himself and used technology e.g. both Mosquito
(sound repellent) and CCTV without success – in doing so, tensions
with neighbours have got worse.
Case Study 4 - Mansfield
VICTIMS PERSPECTIVE
7.5.1
This victim has lived with her Partner in her own semi detached house
in Mansfield for seven years.
7.5.2
Her problems have been caused by her 65 year old neighbour who
also owns his property. The problems started when his mother died.
Prior to this he was continually occupied looking after her. He is
mentally impaired, lives as a recluse without any obvious social
services support or visitors.
7.5.3
With time on his hands and an apparent pent up anger, the victim
believes that she was targeted simply because she was closest to him.
7.5.4
On a daily basis from morning to night, he would verbally abuse her;
call her names through the adjourning walls, when she was in the
garden or going and coming home. He would bang doors, put the TV
on full volume, also try pushing the shared fence as if to break it down
and cause damage to the shared hedges.
7.5.5
The victim made complaints to both Police and Local Authority and
was advised to keep a diary of incidents of which she detailed 400
16
occurrences. Environmental Health provided sound recording
equipment but when it was played back it was muffled and ineffective.
7.5.6
When incidents took place officers attended and advised the offender.
Local Authority staff also attended her house and stayed to witness
the offender singing. Clearly this corroborative evidence by a
professional witness was very useful.
7.5.7
The victim told Members that the only time the ASB stopped was when
Court action was taken. The offender was subject to an Antisocial
Behaviour Order (ASBO) which he breached and is currently on a
suspended prison sentence.
7.5.8
This victim was supportive of Local Authorities and Police as they did
eventually take enforcement action and this led to the ASB stopping.
However, she was critical that some officers who attended were not
interested and took no action and as a result the problems continued.
She believes that had other officers who attended the early incidents
been more proactive, her problems would have been resolved quicker
and less Police time would be wasted by being called out again and
again.
7.5.9
She was also critical of Social Services who would not meet with her
to discuss providing support to her neighbour as he himself had not
sought any help.
7.5.10
She was also critical of the Probation Service and the judicial system
as she has not been made aware of any conditions or what his
community order involves. As his neighbour she would be best placed
to identify any possible breaches.
POLICE PERSPECTIVE
7.5.11
The Police report that the victim resides in an affluent area with low
levels of crime and ASB. The area is built up of mostly privately owned
housing where a majority of the residents are retired.
7.5.12
The Police only received one reported incident in 2007 after the
victim’s neighbour was arrested for criminal damage to her garden.
The Police had no recorded ASB reports against her neighbour until
2008.
7.5.13
Between 2008 and 2011 there were eleven ASB reports to the Police
who worked with Mansfield Council and other agencies to secure
evidence (utilising sound recording equipment) which led to an ASBO
being obtained.
7.5.14
The neighbour went onto breach his ASBO which led to the Court
imposing a suspended prison sentence with a supervision order.
7.5.15
The Police and Council extended the neighbour’s ASBO from 1st July
2011 to 31 December 2012 and since then there has been no further
17
problems reported. Regular monitoring and review of the address
concerned takes place by the Safer Neighbourhood Sergeant.
SUMMARY
7.6
7.5.16
In keeping with what many victims told Members, the neighbour’s
offending did not stop until enforcement action was taken via the
Courts. In this case, even an ASBO did not stop the offender’s
behaviour, but the suspended sentence given by the Court, following
the breach does appear to be working. The threat of Prison appears
very effective.
7.5.17
There is no mention from the Police perspective as to whether the
offender had any mental health issues as perceived by the victim.
Although the victim did not believe that the sound equipment deployed
secured any evidence, the Police reported that it was going to be vital
for their prosecution case. Either way evidence was secured by
Partners.
7.5.18
The action taken by the Police and Partners seems to have been very
effective and it is unclear why the victim felt let down by some Police
officers attending calls. This seems to be one of the better Case
Studies in terms of success stories and may be due to the fact it was
because of the efforts of an enthusiastic Police officer referred to
previously.
Case Study 5 - Mansfield
VICTIMS PERSPECTIVE
d
7.6.1
This elderly victim lives with his wife in his own semi detached home in
Mansfield.
7.6.2
His problems relate to his next door neighbour who is an obvious body
builder about 33 years old (seen to show his children how he can hit
trees) who also owns his house. The problems started almost
immediately when his neighbour moved in at 2am one morning during
December 2010. [It begs the question was his behaviour was like with
his previous neighbours].
7.6.3
Incidents since then include stockpiling huge quantities of building type
rubbish in the front garden, demolishing concrete blocks at 8pm,
lighting fires in the garden, leaving his dog unattended which resulted
in the RSPCA d being called out, as well as making snide remarks and
being abusive and threatening when challenged about his actions
(even to the Police); the neighbour’s children driving a petrol driven
quad bike on his drive way and drawing a ‘penis’ graphic on the
victims wall.
RSPCA: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
18
7.6.4
The victim suspects that his neighbour has bi-polar due to his
behaviour. For example, the victim’s wife on one occasion warned the
neighbour’s children to stop playing football on the street as the ball
was hitting their window. This resulted in the neighbour coming out
himself to spend 30 minutes kicking the ball himself against the
victim’s wall. The Police were called but came too late. Despite being
warned by the Police he repeated this the following day.
7.6.5
The victim told Members that following a complaint to the
Environmental Agency and their warning letter, his neighbour
eventually moved the rubbish (considered as hazardous waste).
7.6.6
The victim’s neighbour was eventually arrested for a criminal matter
and given a conditional discharge at Court. During the Scrutiny
Meeting, the victim explained that he had the support from other
neighbours and this clearly assisted when the offender caused a
problem in the street. [Community cohesion appears critical in building
victims confidence].
7.6.7
Despite this, the victim states that this has not curbed his neighbour’s
behaviour and cited an example where he breached his conditional
discharge but the Police failed act.
7.6.8
Although enforcement action was eventually taken (by one
enthusiastic officer) the victim was not very impressed with either the
Police or Local Authority. He cited a number of reasons:
•
No advice given to him regarding possible installation and use of
CCTV to protect his property.
•
Despite a 101 call to the Police by four neighbours the Police
officer attending simply drove around and went without visiting
callers.
•
He was not given any information about civil action which could be
taken by the Local Authority and only discovered this recently
citing Dorset Police web site as really informative. Furthermore, he
has only just learned about how civil injunctions can help his
situation. This suggests a lack of civil enforcement knowledge by
officers.
•
Despite the high volume of incidents, Police Officers attending had
no knowledge of previous occurrences.
•
His loss of confidence has led to him exploring his own means of
protection i.e. installation of CCTV.
POLICE PERSPECTIVE
7.6.9
The Police are aware of this case reporting a dispute between two
neighbours starting in August 2011. In December 2011 following
several reports, the offender was reported for shouting on the street
and was subsequently arrested for a public order criminal offence.
19
7.6.10
The Police have not provided any information concerning action taken
in respect of the ‘penis’ graphic allegedly seen to be drawn by the
offender’s child on the victim’s wall by one of the other neighbours.
7.6.11
Support of other neighbours led to the arrest and Court conviction of
the offender and emphasises the benefits of building community
cohesion around neighbourly ASB victims.
7.6.12
Mediation was offered but not followed through as the victim chose to
monitor the situation.
7.6.13
In April and May 2012, the Police received complaints of children
playing football in the victim’s driveway and RSPCA issues concerning
dog breeding.
SUMMARY
7.7
7.6.14
There is no information provided by the Police concerning the
environmental issues referred to by the victim i.e. rubbish in the
garden. This might explain why there is no mention of Partnership
working other than a referral to the council for mediation.
7.6.15
The victim provided a written summary of events which he left with the
Scrutiny Committee. A review of his notes shows that there were many
incidents which he chose not to report to the Police.
7.6.16
Despite enforcement action being taken for a criminal matter, the
victim states that this has not curbed the offender’s behaviour.
7.6.17
Many victims do not take part in mediation as they feel they are also in
way at fault; if the ASB behaviour is one sided it begs the question as
to whether it should be offered in such circumstances.
Case Study 6 - City
VICTIMS PERSPECTIVE
7.7.1
The victims in this case are a married couple (Muslims) the female
being white and the male black who live in accommodation rented
through a Private Landlord in the Forest Fields area of Nottingham
City. They have lived in this area for over 3 years. Both were highly
emotional as they gave their evidence. The female victim stated that
she is being treated for depression.
7.7.2
Their problems relate to both ASB and hate crime caused by local
Asian youths e.g. physical assaults, threats, racist name calling,
throwing dog faeces into their garden, congregating outside their
house including smoking, playing ball games, blocking access and
spitting as they pass.
7.7.3
The offenders close ranks with each other and on occasions have
made false allegations about the victims so gaining independent
20
evidence was difficult. They also live on the same street or just around
the corner.
7.7.4
The victims felt that the Police were unable to protect them and felt
fearful that every day there will be further harassment and worry that
they as victims might be arrested if they get involved in any incidents.
They were afraid to step outside the house in case it triggered further
incidents. The Police have installed CCTV to capture evidence but the
victims stated that on one occasion it failed to capture any evidence
following an assault incident.
7.7.5
The victims stated that the only person who seemed to help was the
Beat Manager so when incidents happened when he was off duty the
matter was passed to him to resolve.
7.7.6
The victims have sought to move house nearby but housing policy will
not allow them to have a like for like property.
7.7.7
The evidence given by these victims left Members wondering why they
had suffered for so long and with regard to the nature of ASB and
crime why the offenders were allowed to continue without prosecution.
However, the Police perspective helps to explain why.
POLICE PERSPECTIVE
e
7.7.8
The Police provided a very detailed report on the range of issues
connected with these victims. There is agreement with the type of
problems encountered with the Police pointing out that a large fight
occurring in June 2011 was the catalyst to their involvement.
Previously, the victims had sought to resolve their problems through
speaking with the parents and the local IMAM e but clearly without
success.
7.7.9
Although the Police state that they often struggled to identify individual
offenders due to similar appearance, where victims had managed to
take photographs of offenders these were followed up by Police. The
Police acknowledge that independent evidence is difficult as
neighbours seem reluctant to get involved and are possibly fearful of
reprisals. This is another example to show the importance of building
community cohesion around ASB victims.
7.7.10
However, the Police account details numerous occasions where
arrests were made and prosecutions sought but victims failed to
cooperate with necessary identification procedures or provide
statements. It is difficult to understand this but as with many victims
suffering domestic abuse, they want the abuse to stop but many are
reluctant to give evidence through fear of reprisals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam IMAM is an Islamic leadership position, often the worship leader of a
mosque and the Muslim community. Imams may lead Islamic worship services, serve as community leaders,
and provide religious guidance. It may also be used in the form of a prefix title with scholars of renown.
21
7.7.11
The Police account appears to suggest that what started out as low
level ASB soon escalated when the female victim retaliated with verbal
abuse.
7.7.12
The Police report that the covert CCTV is fully operational and has
been in operation since April 2012. To date it has captured nothing of
evidential value, other than lads passing by on their way elsewhere.
7.7.13
The Police account details a range of Police and Partnership activity.
SUMMARY
8
7.7.14
Based on the information provided it seems likely that while ever the
victims’ live in that location, incidents will continue. The Police appear
to have taken all possible action to address the issues including
warning the children in the presence of parents and making arrests
where evidence was available.
7.7.15
The situation is exacerbated by victims who seem easily drawn into
conflict situations and by their reluctance to provide the necessary
evidence to support a prosecution. In addition, since the offenders live
locally and their route to local shops and amenities is past the victims’
house, potential flashpoints will continue to exist.
7.7.16
Although, the victims are willing to move house, current housing policy
means that they will not get like for like property. The male victim’s
immigration status is a factor in these considerations. This is an
example of where organisational policy is a barrier to effective problem
solving.
7.7.17
It seems therefore that unless the Police are able to secure
independent evidence through CCTV, or planned covert operations,
they will continue to respond to incidents and victims may continue to
suffer.
7.7.18
There also appears to be a single dependency issue with matters
being relayed to the Beat Manager to pick up when he comes on duty
which give the victims the impression that he is the only one interested
in solving their problems.
7.7.19
Members are aware that these victims have recently moved out of the
area.
DESKTOP RESEARCH – ASB TOOLS AND POWERS
8.1.1
The lack of knowledge concerning tools and powers for tackling ASB
came up during the Focus Groups especially in relation to tackling
issues in Housing Association and Private Landlord properties.
8.1.2
The Scrutiny Committee decided that desk top research should be
undertaken to explore the range of tools and powers available to all
Partners involved in tackling ASB so that Case Studies could be
22
reviewed and better understood against these known powers and also
to identify if there are any gaps in their utilisation.
8.1.3
8.2
This section briefly summarises how the Government intends to
improve such tools and powers and also details what powers are
currently available for Police and Partners.
Existing and Future Tools and Powers
8.2.1
In May 2012, the Government published its white paper, 'Putting
victims first - more effective responses to antisocial behaviour' 4, which
sets out the Government's plans to deliver on the commitment to
introduce more effective measures to tackle antisocial behaviour.
8.2.2
The Chart below shows the range of existing powers available to both
Police and Local Authorities.
8.2.3
The Government’s intention as shown in the White Paper is to give
professionals the tools they need to protect victims effectively by
replacing the 19 existing powers with six simple new ones:
1) The Crime Prevention Injunction – an injunction available to a
wide range of agencies, which can be used quickly to protect
victims by dealing with anti-social behaviour by private tenants and
owner occupiers, as well as social tenants (addressing a criticism
of the existing ASB Injunction)
2) The Criminal Behaviour Order – an order available on conviction
for any criminal offence which will allow Courts to attach positive
requirements to ensure perpetrators deal with the underlying
issues that are driving their behaviour (addressing a criticism of
the ASBO), as well as including prohibitions to immediately protect
victims.
23
3) The Community Protection Notice – designed to deal with
particular ASB impacting on a community’s quality of life (for
example to deal with noise, litter or graffiti).
4) The Community Protection Order (public space) – a locally
determined order which could impose controls on behaviour in
public places, for example controlling drinking in public as well as
preventing other behaviour which has an impact on quality of life.
5) The Community Protection Order (closure) – simplifying the
current complex number of powers available to close premises
that are a magnet for trouble.
6) The Direction Power – a simpler and less bureaucratic power to
enable the Police to disperse situations to protect victims without
needing to go through a long and slow process to designate an
area in advance.
8.3
8.2.4
The Government also intends to speed up the process of eviction for
nightmare neighbours who make victims lives a misery. To do this they
are introducing a new mandatory route to possession for ASB for both
private and social landlords (Housing Associations), as a way of
significantly reducing the length of the possession process and
providing faster relief to victims and communities.
8.2.5
However, in contrast to rented accommodation, it should be
emphasised that owner occupiers cannot be evicted for breach of
tenancy agreement.
8.2.6
Appendix A provides a more detailed explanation of the transition
from existing powers to tackle individuals and benefits of proposed
powers. Appendix B does the same for ASB occurring in the
community.
Private Rented
8.3.1
In both Focus Groups and Case Studies, difficulties in tackling
neighbours causing ASB who live in private rented accommodation
was a significant issue. This section explains what action can be
taken.
8.3.2
In July 2012, Wendy Wilson of the Social Policy Section produced a
briefing note 5 for the House of Commons ‘The Anti-social neighbours
in private housing’ which addresses the current legal position and
remedies available to private rented, Local Authority and owner
occupiers.
8.3.3
As far back as 2005, the Northern Housing Consortium told the Home
Affairs Select Committee’s inquiry into anti-social behaviour (ASB)6
that a “significant number of problems arise in the private sector that
are ignored due to absentee landlords or landlords that do not have
the skills or capacity to tackle the problems.”
24
f
8.3.4
Wilson’s paper explains that as a first step neighbours should advise
the landlord or managing agent of the property concerned that the
tenant(s) are causing a nuisance. Neighbours do not have a legal right
to find out who owns a particular property but they may be able to
trace ownership through the Land Registry (subject to a fee).
8.3.5
The remedies open to a neighbour of a private tenant who exhibits
ASB will depend upon the nature of the nuisance. For example, if the
nuisance is mainly to do with noise, the environmental health
department of the local authority may be able to assist. Alternatively, if
the nuisance amounts to physical assault/harassment the matter
should be dealt with by the Police.
8.3.6
Once again, depending on the nature of the nuisance, the residents
involved may be able to seek an injunction 7 requiring the anti-social
neighbours to stop interfering with their property/person f.
8.3.7
Victims of anti-social behaviour should seek professional legal advice
on any remedies that might be applicable in their individual
circumstances. However, not all victims will have the wherewithal or
financial ability to take their own legal action.
8.3.8
As a general rule, landlords are not responsible for the actions of their
tenants as long as they have not ‘authorised’ the ASB. Despite having
the power to seek a Court Order for eviction when tenants exhibit
ASB, Private Landlords are free to decide whether or not to take action
against their tenants. It seems that there are no sanctions against
Private Landlords who fail to take action.
8.3.9
However, if they choose to take action, Private Landlords can control
the behaviour of their tenants through the terms and conditions of the
tenancy agreement. Terms can be inserted into tenancy agreements
to impose standards of behaviour on tenants and to prohibit
unacceptable behaviour. In the event of a breach the landlord will be
entitled to seek possession of the property or seek an injunction to
prevent any further breach.
8.3.10
The vast majority of private sector tenants are assured short-hold
tenants. These tenants have very limited security of tenure. In order to
obtain possession using the “short-hold ground” under Section 21 of
the Housing Act (1988) the landlord must serve a notice requiring
possession (giving at least two months’ notice) – there is no need to
give reasons for seeking possession and the Court has no discretion
but to order possession if the notice requirements have been met.
8.3.11
If a landlord is willing to take action to evict an anti-social tenant it may
be necessary for the person who has experienced the nuisance
Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA) - The PHA makes it a criminal offence to pursue a course of
conduct which amounts to harassment of a person. A Court may issue a restraining order against someone
found guilty of such an offence. In addition to the criminal offence, the PHA also creates a civil statutory tort
of harassment, which enables a person to obtain a civil court injunction to stop harassment occurring and to
claim damages where appropriate.
25
behaviour to submit evidence of the nuisance (e.g. a diary of events)
and to appear as a witness in Court.
8.3.12
Wilson makes the point that responsible and well-intentioned landlords
may lack the incentive to take action especially in areas of low housing
demand where finding better tenants may be difficult. Many
unscrupulous landlords in these areas may take no interest in their
tenants or the neighbourhood.
SUMMARY
8.3.13
8.4
•
Helping with the identification of the landlord (land registry check)
•
Encouraging the landlord to take appropriate enforcement action
•
Advising landlords on drafting suitable terms and conditions of
their tenancy agreement which specifically tackle breaches of
ASB.
•
Assisting landlords with advice and support on how to enforce
short-hold tenancy agreements e.g. taking statements and
preparing civil enforcement cases.
Local Authority - Noise
8.4.1
Noise was a significant problem in most of the Cases Studies and
Focus Groups and for this reason the legislation and national guidance
is explained in more detail here than other types of ASB offences.
8.4.2
Local Authorities have powers under the Environmental Protection Act
(1990) to act against private tenants and others who cause a nuisance
to neighbours. DEFRA g has produced guidance ‘Bothered by Noise’ 8
on what action can be taken for victims suffering noise.
8.4.3
DEFRA advise that when talking or mediation with their neighbour is
not possible or doesn’t work, victims’ can deal with noise problems by
taking formal action, such as:
8.4.4
g
With regard to the findings of the Focus Groups and Case Studies,
supporting victims who suffer ASB from neighbours living in private
rented accommodation is important. Notwithstanding that new
legislation may amend the existing tools and powers, Partners (Local
Authorities) could assist victims by:
•
Complaining to your Local Authority
•
Complaining to a Magistrates’ Court
Under the law, Local Authorities have a duty to deal with any noise
that they consider to be what’s known as a ‘statutory nuisance’.
Under the Noise Act 1996 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990,
the Council’s powers to seize equipment are set out in detail. They are
able to seize noisemaking equipment and issue financial penalties to
DEFRA - Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
26
those responsible. The Police Superintendent for the City Division
provided a good example of how this legislation had been used to
good effect to tackle noise nuisance emanating from a Night Club in
the City centre.
h
8.4.5
In addition to noise, Statutory Nuisances9 (under relevant conditions)
includes Odour, Dust, Smoke, Artificial Light, Insects, Accumulations
and Deposits, Fumes or Gases, Premises and Animals which are
prejudicial to health or a nuisance.
8.4.6
Where a Local Authority establishes any one of these issues
constitutes a nuisance i.e.:
•
is unreasonably interfering with the use or enjoyment of
someone’s premises
•
or is prejudicial to health
8.4.7
They must generally serve an abatement notice on the person
responsible. Failure to comply with the notice could result in the
person being prosecuted.
8.4.8
Local Authorities may measure the noise as part of their investigation
into a complaint. However, there is no set level at which noise
becomes a statutory nuisance. They may demand that the noise stops
altogether or only happens at certain times of the day. A person can
appeal against an abatement notice within 21 days of it being served.
8.4.9
However, if the noise occurs at night i.e. after 11pm and before 7am
and exceeds the permitted level h i.e. crudely put, 10 decibels higher
than it would be normally. DEFRA guidance explains that capturing
intermittent noise and proving an offence is more complex than where
the noise is constant e.g. coming from a discothèque at a local bar.
8.4.10
A Local Authority can put off serving an abatement notice for up to
seven days from when they decide that a statutory nuisance exists.
This might be so that they can try to talk to the neighbour about the
problem or so that they can use other legal powers.
8.4.11
The Local Authority has to take steps to deal with the issue within the
seven days. If these don’t work, the Local Authority must serve an
abatement notice.
8.4.12
If the noise continues and a person receives an abatement notice but
carries on making noise without a good reason, they will have
committed an offence.
8.4.13
Section 82 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (2005)
empowers Local Authorities to issue fixed penalty notices and Courts
DEFRA Guidance to Local Authorities in England (March 2008). The permitted level is now set at 34 dBA if
the underlying level of noise is no more than 24 dBA, or 10 dBA above the underlying level of noise where
this exceeds 24 dBA.
27
can impose fines of up to £5,000 for individuals and £20,000 for
businesses.
8.4.14
If, for whatever reason, the Local Authority does not take action, or if a
victim does not wish to involve them, they can complain about a noise
problem direct to a Magistrates’ Court.
8.4.15
The Magistrates’ Court will need to be persuaded that the noise
problem amounts to a statutory nuisance.
8.4.16
If the Court agrees, it will issue an order telling the offender to stop the
noise nuisance and what they have to do to achieve this. The Court
may also give the noise maker a fine. If someone breaks the rules of
an abatement order and carries on making noise without a reasonable
excuse, they will be guilty of an offence and can be fined.
8.4.17
Some Local Authorities, Cornwall 10 for example, indicate that noise
which is unlikely to warrant enforcement action includes: sounds of
occupation, slamming doors, raised voices or arguments or noise by
children. The Council declares on its web site that:
“In cases where the noise is caused by shouting, arguing or swearing
or by the deliberate banging of doors then the anti-social behaviour
team in Community Safety may be able to assist”
8.4.18
The Royal Borough of Kingston (RBK)11 takes a similar approach
stating that it cannot take action for lifestyle noises such as:
•
Footfalls
•
Dropping objects/moving furniture
•
Light switches being switched on/off
•
General talking
•
Shouting and singing, except in cases where disturbance is
caused frequently at night (after 11pm) and for prolonged periods
•
Slamming doors
•
Toilet flushing
•
Babies crying
•
Children playing
8.4.19
The Council explains that case law from the House of Lords states that
noise from the ordinary and reasonable use of residential premises
cannot be considered a nuisance.
8.4.20
It is unclear what stance Local Authorities across Nottinghamshire
usually take, but many ASB cases reviewed by the Scrutiny
Committee fit into one or more of the above categories. In addition, in
all cases where sound recording equipment was deployed, none
captured any evidence considered to be a ‘statutory nuisance’.
28
8.4.21
Given that the criteria includes ‘or is prejudicial to health’, in all cases
where noise was a contributor to ASB, the victims’ health had clearly
been adversely affected, with many victims being on antidepressants.
Based on the victims’ evidence it is unclear what weight Environmental
Health officers give to the impact the noise has had on victims health.
8.4.22
However, DEFRA guidance emphasises that statutory nuisance is
limited to ‘the average person’ i.e. someone who is not unusually
sensitive 12. This may pose a dilemma for any prosecution case as
most ASB victims interviewed during the Scrutiny process had in fact
become extremely sensitive to the noise.
SUMMARY
8.4.23
Assuming that Cornwall and RBK’s interpretation of case law is
correct, this poses a problem for both Police and Partners since many
victims perceive certain neighbourly behaviour as ASB and this has
clearly affected their health; however, it seems that Environmental
Health Officers are unable to help simply because case law and
DEFRA guidance in respect of statutory nuisance excludes many
types of noise perceived as ASB by many victims in the Focus Groups
and Case Studies.
8.4.24
Having reviewed the relevant legislation and national guidance it is
therefore not surprising that no cases reviewed have been taken
forward by Local Authorities for statutory noise nuisance.
Consequently, victims have continued to call the Police and in the
absence of any other offences have been unable to fully resolve the
problem.
8.4.25
Given the limitations of proving statutory nuisance, it seems that the
Police may need to consider greater utilisation of the Protection from
Harassment Act (1997) which is a criminal offence. However, proof
that the offender pursued a course of conduct which amounts to
harassment of a person needs to be proved.
8.4.26
The Police will need evidence that the person whose course of
conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of
another. Also, if a reasonable person in possession of the same
information would think the course of conduct amounted to
harassment of the other and the course of conduct must involve
conduct on at least two occasions 13.
8.4.27
A Court may issue a restraining order against someone found guilty of
such an offence. In addition to the criminal offence, the PHA also
creates a civil statutory tort of harassment, which enables a person to
obtain a civil Court injunction to stop harassment occurring and to
claim damages where appropriate.
29
8.5
9
Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
8.5.1
Section 215 of the Town & Country Planning Act (1990) provides a
local planning authority (LPA) with the power, in certain
circumstances, to take steps requiring land to be cleaned up when its
condition adversely affects the amenity of the area.
8.5.2
If it appears that the amenity of part of their area is being adversely
affected by the condition of neighbouring land and buildings, they may
serve a notice on the owner requiring that the situation be remedied.
These notices set out the steps that need to be taken, and the time
within which they must be carried out. LPAs also have powers under
s219 to undertake the clean up works themselves and to recover the
costs from the landowner.
8.5.3
The powers under this legislation would have been available to the
Local Authority in tackling the issues of stockpiled rubbish described in
Case Study 5.
WRITTEN EVIDENCE
9.1.1
9.2
In response to the key issues arising out of the ASB Focus Groups,
issues identified in the recent HMIC report and also Victim Support
Advocacy Project, the Force was asked to provide written evidence to
19 questions. Aspects of the Force responses are included in
Section12.
PERFORMANCE
9.2.1
The Chart below shows the trend in reports of ASB since March 2011.
It can be seen that ASB fell significantly between July and December
2011 and then increased until March 2012. Since then there has been
a stable to slight decline.
9.2.2
The Police Authority set the Force a target to reduce ASB by 10% or
5,796 incidents in 2012/13. As of August 2012, the Force has reduced
ASB by 31.7% or 8,841 incidents.
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Monthly Performance
12 MR Performance
Average
80% Confidence Limit
95% Confidence Limit
0
Mar-11
Apr-11
May-11
Jun-11
Jul-11
Aug-11
Sep-11
30
Oct-11
Nov-11
Dec-11
Jan-12
Feb-12
Mar-12
Apr-12
May-12
Jun-12
Jul-12
Aug-12
9.3
9.2.3
The table below shows that members of the public have been
increasingly satisfied that the Police and Council are effectively
dealing with ASB and crime issues. In fact, satisfaction is higher now
than at any other time. There has been a marked improvement since
December 2010.
9.2.4
The target of 58% to agree by 2012-13 has been exceeded and is
currently 61.4% (as of March 2012).
9.2.5
Notwithstanding, any issues or concerns identified through this
scrutiny process, these performance results would suggest that the
Force and Local Councils are doing a good job for the vast majority of
ASB victims.
POLICE ASB PROCEDURE
9.3.1
On 13th July 2012, at its inaugural meeting, senior Police officers gave
a very detailed and impressive presentation (66 slides) of the new
Force procedure for tackling ASB covering a range of topics:
•
ASB Policy
•
Call handling and risk assessment
•
Problem Solving
 ASB Personal
 ASB Nuisance
 ASB Environmental
•
Performance Management
•
Policing Priorities
•
Future developments
9.3.2
The purpose of this presentation was to provide Members with a step
by step explanation of the new procedures from receipt of call to action
taken.
9.3.3
The new ASB Policy – adopted in April, 2012 defines ASB as:
31
“Acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment,
alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household
as (the defendant)” Crime and Disorder Act 1998
9.3.4
ASB PERSONAL is defined as:
‘Personal’ is designed to identify ASB incidents that the caller, callhandler or anyone else perceives as either deliberately targeted at an
individual or group or having an impact on an individual or group rather
than the community at large
9.3.5
The City Divisional Superintendent provided Members with an
example of how a local ASB profile was tackled in Bulwell Forest.
Interventions included development of neighbourhood Patrol Plans,
support from Community Protection Officer (CPOs), use of body worn
cameras and CCTV to gather intelligence and evidence. The
disruptive ringleaders were identified and targeted.
9.3.6
Meetings were held with parents, warnings were given and a five step
ASB process was initiated. A range of other Partnership action was
undertaken as part of the Week of Action which included extensive
and impressive diversionary activities to encourage young people to
engage in positive activities e.g. dance classes for the girls, football for
boys.
9.3.7
Members were told that community feedback was very positive and
ASB incidents have fallen.
9.3.8
ASB ENVIRONMENTAL is defined as:
‘Environmental’ deals with the interface between people and places. It
includes incidents where individuals and groups have an impact on
their surroundings including natural, built and social environments.
9.3.9
The Police Superintendent for the City Division provided a good
example of how noise legislation was used to good effect to obtain
evidence of statutory nuisance generated by a Night Club in the City
centre on 30 occasions in May 2012 which led to music equipment
being seized and other enforcement action taken.
9.3.10
ASB NUISANCE is defined as:
‘Nuisance’ captures those incidents where an act, condition, thing or
person causes trouble, annoyance, inconvenience, offence or
suffering to the local community in general rather than to individual
victims.
“It includes incidents where behaviour goes beyond the conventional
bounds of acceptability and interferes with public interests including
health, safety and quality of life”.
9.3.11
The Superintendent of the County Division gave a presentation on an
ASB Nuisance case occurring in Warsop. During a 6 month period one
32
resident made 50 calls complaining of nuisance. He lived next to an
alleyway which is very busy and becomes a hot spot for ASB.
10
i
9.3.12
Local Police and Partners addressed the on-going problem by
establishing and enforcing a dispersal zone, agreeing ABC’s
(Acceptable Behaviour Contracts) with offenders and undertaking
patrols as part of ‘Operation Animism’ which led to a cessation of the
problem.
9.3.13
The victim’s request for the alleyway to be closed under a Gating
Order i was considered but following consultation declined. Members
are aware that Gating Orders are a last resort solution.
PARTNERSHIPS
10.1.1
On the 9th October 2012, the Scrutiny Committee heard evidence from
a range of Partners. Unfortunately representatives from Newark and
Sherwood and Rushcliffe Local Authorities were unable to attend but
submitted written Case Studies as an alternative.
10.1.2
The purpose of this meeting was for Members to receive evidence of
ASB Case Studies where positive outcomes were achieved for victims
to help Members identify what works effectively with a view to
identifying best practice. Partners were asked to present Case
Study(s) of how the needs of a recent ASB victim(s) have been met by
effective Partnership/Police working in their area.
10.1.3
In addition, in order to provide some structure and comparison for the
Case Study(s) Partners were asked to include information in the
presentation which also provided a response to ten scrutiny questions.
10.1.4
Members were keen to understand barriers and Partners views on
how tackling ASB could be improved for victims. In this respect, the
majority of Partners advocated a dedicated ASB victim support worker
for each Authority.
10.1.5
Most Partners recognised the difficulties of tackling neighbourly ASB
with offenders who live in private rented properties. It was suggested
by some Partners that due to the limitations and capacity of Private
Rented landlords that Local Authorities oversee legal proceedings for
breaches of tenancy on their behalf. The cost of procedures under
section 21 for short hold tenants is small when compared to the cost of
policing ongoing ASB problems i.e. there is an invest to save
incentive.
10.1.6
Others argued that Local Authorities should be granted powers to
control irresponsible landlords.
The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (2005) inserts new provisions in the Highways Act 1980
(Section 129A to129G) which enable a local highway authority to gate a highway similar to existing powers
under Section118B and Section 119B of the Highways Act 1980. It should be a last resort solution.
33
10.2
j
10.1.7
In a number of cases although the offender’s ASB stopped following
Court action, this appeared to be the catalyst for the offender choosing
to move home. This being the case, it begs the question whether new
neighbours will suffer the same fate and highlights the importance of
Partners being able to retrieve information on historical incidents.
10.1.8
It also suggests that there might be merit in introducing an offender
management program for evicted tenants (or those who move after
facing eviction) to a new location in a new district for example.
Ashfield
10.2.1
Members received a verbal briefing accompanied by photographs to
describe a privately rented property which was blighted by persistent
ASB which was closed down in July 2012 for three months after the
council was successful in obtaining an Anti-Social Behaviour Closure
Notice.
10.2.2
The Community Protection Manager informed Members that the
council had made every attempt to work with the people causing the
ASB but they failed to respond. When the problem persisted the
council had no option but to close the property. In this case, offenders
had a clear disregard to any tenancy agreements, the law, and council
and neighbours rights.
10.2.3
This was the first time the Authority had applied for this type of AntiSocial Behaviour Closure Notice which prohibits anyone from
remaining on or entering the privately rented property for three
months. Anyone who breaches the order will commit a criminal
offence.
10.2.4
The Council reported that closure of this privately rented property
should send a clear message to all residents of Ashfield that ASB will
not be tolerated in the district and the local authority will take any steps
necessary to abate it.
10.2.5
Although technically, this case cannot be referred to as a typical
‘troubled family’ j as the children were not in school, it was complex i.e.
single parent with boyfriend in prison, lots of visitors to the household
at night, loud parties, neighbours windows smashed, gates damaged,
screaming, shouting and fighting fuelled by alcohol; men urinating
openly in the garden in view of neighbours, waste and litter problems,
threats to neighbours and men seen in the garden with hammers.
10.2.6
The female occupant was also a victim of domestic violence and when
her boyfriend came out of prison in May 2012 the problems escalated.
In addition, to serious ASB issues there were both adult and child
safeguarding issues to address.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/communities/troubledfamilies/ A troubled family is one that has serious
problems, including parents not working and children not in school, and causes serious problems, such as
youth crime and anti-social behaviour. A lot of time and money is spent by local service providers routinely
responding to these problems.
34
10.2.7
The problems started in January 2012 and evidence was obtained
through neighbours diary sheets, CCTV evidence and sound
recordings. Various ASB tools and powers were used to control the
behaviour of the occupants including ABCs (Acceptable Behaviour
Contracts), Police and patrols by Community Protection officers but
without success. The Council’s Environmental Protection also seized
sound equipment.
10.2.8
All voluntary agreements were breached and the female occupant
failed to cooperate with all agencies.
10.2.9
The ASB problems in this case were solved seven months after they
started following Court intervention. Unless the occupants agree to
work with and receive help from Partners they may cause the same
problems wherever they live. Furthermore, at the end of the 3 months
without additional legal prohibitions, the offenders could move back
into the same property.
10.2.10 The landlord of this privately rented property could have taken legal
action for breaches of tenancy agreements but failed to do so. It is
unclear why this is. Had this been council owned property, action for
breaches of tenancy would have occurred much earlier avoiding the
need for an ASB closure order.
10.2.11 However, it highlights the difficulties Police and Partners face when
dealing with ASB problems in privately rented properties. Had the
incidents been less overt it is likely that problems would have been
more protracted.
10.2.12 Again, given the nature of offending and complete disregard to any
non enforcement interventions; it begs the question as whether the
ASB has continued in another location. Eviction is not necessarily the
final solution to tackling ASB but can provide much needed respite to
the victims/neighbours.
10.3
Mansfield
10.3.1
Partners gave a presentation on a Case Study which Members
identified as Case Study 4 when the victim attended the previous
Scrutiny Meeting to share her experiences. This was interesting as
although Members felt this was one of the better Case Studies for
victims, the victim in Case Study 4 was still critical on some aspects.
10.3.2
However, Partners provided some additional information which was
helpful. For example, that the sound recording device did capture
evidence of excessive noise coming from the TV which contributed to
the evidence. Furthermore, the offender readily admitted the offences.
10.3.3
Although the Council had put a lot of effort into securing an ASBO for
the offending neighbour, it is unclear why, but the Police did not
always inform the council of all ASBO breaches.
35
10.4
k
10.3.4
Although the offender’s antisocial behaviour stopped after he was
given a suspended sentence for breaching his ASBO, Partners
reported that he now intends to move house.
10.3.5
Partners aired some frustration with the current CPS arrangements i.e.
that there was no dedicated CPS Solicitor available for tackling ASBO
breach cases. This may due to the fact that ASBOs are obtained
through Civil Courts and breaches dealt with in the Criminal Courts.
10.3.6
This was a national issue identified some years ago and overcome
when arrangements were put in place for CPS Solicitors to have the
full file of evidence (both civil and criminal) relating to the granting of
the ASBO and evidence of the breach. Practically it was necessary for
CPS solicitors to understand both civil and criminal law relating to the
ASBO.
10.3.7
Members being aware that the victim had perceived the offending
neighbour to be suffering mental health problems were surprised to be
informed by Partners that the Judge had disregarded this issue
indicating that the offender knew what he was doing.
Broxtowe
10.4.1
Partners presented a case in respect of an area made up
predominantly of Council owned bungalows and flats rented out to
mainly elderly residents although some are now owner occupied.
10.4.2
The nature of the problems included intimidation of elderly residents,
noise due to street drinking, cannabis use, alcohol related ASB
incidents, criminal damage, violence and dog nuisance.
10.4.3
The problems were caused by four individuals who lived in private
rented flats who attracted undesirables from other areas.
10.4.4
The range of issues was tackled through Partnership interventions and
included tenants being reminded of the consequences of breaching
their tenancy agreements. However, these warnings failed to curb
offenders’ ASB which only stopped when the offenders were either
evicted or left the area of their own volition. Incidents fell 71% after the
offenders left the area. Again where did they move to and has ASB
started in a new location?
10.4.5
Due to the residents being elderly they were fearful of giving evidence
so hearsay evidence was used during a residents meeting. Private
Landlords were initially unresponsive but when they attended a joint
Partnership meeting including the Police, they agreed to cooperate.
10.4.6
CCTV was considered but there were practical reasons preventing its
use although there is CCTV installed outside one of the local shops
funded by the councilk. High visible patrols were undertaken.
The CCTV at the store was mobile so it has now been moved but permanent cameras have been put up at
the flats funded by housing (Broxtowe still has its own housing stock) and the landlord of the flats.
36
10.4.7
It was explained that due to limitations of securing evidence (hearsay
evidence and diary sheets) and the need to serve notices there were
barriers which prevented the case being resolved any quicker.
10.4.8
Partners emphasised the importance of maintaining regular contact
with victims to keep them updated on action being taken to provide
reassurance. This was done primarily by the ASB Case worker but
Partners suggested that it could be done by having a dedicated Victim
Support officer to support ASB victims.
10.4.9
This case highlights the importance of securing evidence early and
through means which do not rely on victim evidence. It is unfortunate
that CCTV was not deployed as most incidents occurred outside the
dwellings.
10.4.10 Although difficulties were encountered the Council and Police were
able to influence the Private Landlords to take action.
10.4.11 Although the evictions have resolved the ASB issues in this locality it
is probable that the offenders will continue their ASB behaviour in their
new locality and emphasises the importance of Partners being able to
track historical incidents so that Partners in other geographical areas
can move straight to enforcement action as opposed to following the
ask, warn, enforce escalation procedure commonly adopted.
10.4.12 It further suggests that any control measures or conditions be applied
wherever they live. The new ASB powers may assist.
10.5
Bassetlaw
10.5.1
Partners presented a Case Study which related to a defined
geographic location within the district which had become a hot spot for
ASB between October and December 2010.
10.5.2
A range of Partnership interventions were utilised including targeted
patrols, a 12 week ‘Dare Plus’ project, a dedicated ASB Victim Case
Worker, deployment of covert CCTV cameras, two families supported
by FIP (Family Intervention Project) and establishing a task and finish
group.
10.5.3
After 12 months of targeted Partnership action, ASB reduced by 30%.
In response to a survey undertaken, a range of Partnership and
externally funded diversionary activities have been established e.g.
Paintball, Extreme 2. In addition, work has begun with local school
with a view to diverting future generations from the estate into positive
activities.
10.5.4
A range of covert CCTV cameras, Pendant cameras, sound
monitoring equipment were deployed to secure evidence which
assisted the enforcement element of the project.
10.5.5
As with the Broxtowe and Gedling Case Studies, key successes were
attributed to the dedicated Victim Support ASB case worker who being
37
the single point of contact ensured good communication, information
sharing which clearly assisted in building community cohesion and
confidence.
10.6
10.7
Gedling
10.6.1
Partners presented a case relating to an identified ASB hot spot in one
street of the Borough which was also located in a Partnership plus
area. The ASB was caused by a group of young offenders who lived in
the street. Although ASB levels have improved over the two years it
has not been completely eradicated.
10.6.2
A Partnership approach was taken with a full range of diversionary,
preventative and enforcement activities implemented including
warning letters to all residents, ABCs, targeted youth support, fencing
repairs, street cleansing, building work, joint patrols, dedicated Victim
Support ASB case worker appointed, utilisation of CCTV and ASBOs.
10.6.3
Some young people responded to targeted youth support and ABCs
but many offenders went on to receive and in fact breach their ASBOs.
It was only enforcement action which stemmed offenders ASB
behaviour.
10.6.4
In keeping with most other Case Studies reviewed by Members,
Partners were hampered with securing evidence in part because of
neighbours fear of giving first hand evidence. Partners had to rely on
hearsay evidence obtained through focus groups and CCTV evidence.
10.6.5
Although there were lessons to be learned, Partners concluded that
their success in tackling this case was mainly attributed to the
investment in a dedicated ASB Case worker who helped build
community cohesion in the street and victim confidence which
eventually resulted in witnesses giving evidence at Court resulting in
convictions for public order offences (criminal) and ASBO breach
offences (criminal).
City
10.7.1
The Head of Neighbourhood Enforcement provided Members with a
presentation of how and why Community Protection operates a strong
enforcement (broken windows theory) approach within the City of
Nottingham. He explained that his team follows a five stage model:
1. Ask
2. Warn
3. Primary Enforcement
4. Secondary Enforcement
5. Breach
38
10.7.2
However, he emphasised that there were circumstances where some
stages would be skipped. This could be applied to those who have
previously been evicted from another location.
10.7.3
He informed Members that the approach taken in the City had
informed national best practice and highlighted a few reasons for their
success:
10.7.4
10.8
l
•
Community Protection staff were co-located with Police officers at
Police stations which enhanced intelligence and information
sharing, trust and improved understanding of each other’s tools
and powers.
•
The same evidence was used for both civil and criminal cases
referred to as the ‘twin track’ approach.
•
Furthermore, Community Protection had integrated other Council
services e.g. CCTV, Training Standards, Licensing, Public Health,
Health, Food & Safety, Dog Control and Parking enforcement.
This in effect expanded the range of intelligence, tools and powers
available for tackling ASB.
•
Community Protection officers have received the full range of
delegated and accredited powers to enable them to tackle both
civil and criminal offences.
It is unfortunate that the City Case Studies reviewed did not have any
involvement with Community Protection so Members could see this
best practice model in operation. However, it will be seen in later
sections that this approach appears to address a number of gaps
identified in other Case Studies.
Rushcliffe
10.8.1
A written Case Study was submitted to the Scrutiny Committee which
described a resident of a village in Rushcliffe who had a severe and
long history of mental health dating back over a number of years and
had been in and out of institutions and hospitals on a frequent basis.
10.8.2
His behaviour that was causing distress was basically harassment
where he would leave items at females house in the village and be
seen looking through windows and hanging around people’s property.
His behaviour was causing a lot of stress and heartache for the
affected residents. The Police had to make visits every day.
10.8.3
The case was considered by a Police led MAPPA l meeting (Social
services, mental health and the mental health teams GP were all
involved) which led to vast improvements in behaviour through various
interventions i.e. the local Pub landlord who set various tasks to
occupy the offenders time.
MAPPA (Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements) - Responsible Authorities tasked with the
management of registered sex offenders, violent and other types of sexual offenders, and offenders who
pose a serious risk of harm to the public.
39
10.9
m
10.8.4
In addition, the Police obtained an indefinite harassment order to
restrict the movement of the offender and the offender’s medication
was monitored and controlled.
10.8.5
This intervention has been going for about 12 months and has been a
great success and really is an example of the positive benefits to the
individual and the community of working together in a true Partnership
spirit. There was no recurrence of the ASB during this time.
10.8.6
Of note is the interventions applied to control the behaviour of the
offender with mental health problems i.e. controlled medication and
keeping him busy with positive activities.
Newark & Sherwood
10.9.1
A written Case Study was submitted to the Scrutiny Committee which
described extensive and widespread serious ASB and crime caused
by an individual who was a self harmer with clear deteriorating mental
and physical health problems and alcohol addiction issues which led to
him being disowned by his family and homeless.
10.9.2
Issues of securing evidence were not a problem as offences were
numerous, overtly committed, continual and intentional. He had no
fear of the usual legal deterrents. He preferred to be in prison and
would breach his ASBO within hours of being released into the
community. For example, he would steal de-icer (when he doesn’t own
a car), just so he would go back to prison.
10.9.3
Despite his obvious mental health issues, enforcement was used as a
holding tool but did not bring a solution. Trying to get assessments,
when offenders also have substance misuse proved very difficult –
Case workers learned that if a person doesn’t fit neatly into a ‘box’
trying to get them support is very difficult.
10.9.4
During 2009, three psychiatrists gave very differing views
issues, from a diagnosis of a strong indication of mental health
that needed to be further investigated, to having no mental
issues at all. He failed to attend any appointments or engage
voluntary assessments.
10.9.5
This case caused Case workers to establish significantly better
networks with Probation and the Mental Health Team. It necessitated
a joint effort and sharing of all historical information by ASB officers,
Council Solicitors, Crown Prosecution Solicitors (CPS) in order to
secure an ASBO.
10.9.6
The offender has subsequently been sectioned m by the Court for 12
weeks for further assessments.
of his
issues
health
in any
To be detained under the Mental Health Act (1983) or ‘sectioned’ someone must be suffering from a mental
disorder which requires assessment or treatment and this needs to be given in hospital in the interests of
their own health or safety or to protect other people.
40
11
11.2
10.9.7
Local practitioners conclude that mental health is an enormous
problem when dealing with ASB. When combined with substance
misuse, it is difficult to get a solid diagnosis and therefore specialist
services won’t take the cases on.
10.9.8
The eventual sectioning of the offender has been supported by the
Forensic Team, part of Criminal Justice Liaison Team for
Nottinghamshire Healthcare from Mansfield, who took this case as an
extraordinary case as the offender did not fit their criteria.
10.9.9
Practitioners report that this case highlighted the need for all
Partnership agencies to workout outside their standard remit and the
need to step beyond existing policies in exceptional circumstances.
SITE VISITS – Vulnerable Victims Panels
11.1.1
The outcome of the Focus Groups identified that the majority of victims
would be categorised as vulnerable victims. Since many victims were
critical of Police and Partners in resolving their ASB problem,
Members were keen to observe for themselves how Police and
Partners support vulnerable victims.
11.1.2
It was established that each Local Authority (LA) held a Vulnerable
Victims Panel on a monthly basis. Although it was Members intention
to attend all eight LA Panels, due to other commitments only five of the
eight meetings were attended. Members are unable therefore to
comment on Ashfield, Newark and Sherwood or Bassetlaw.
11.1.3
Members noted that in a number of meetings it seemed that issues
discussed were more focused on addressing the victims’ vulnerability
(e.g. safeguarding) and issues of ASB seemed very minor and almost
ancillary to the issues. The chair of Rushcliffe RBC VPP n meeting was
very mindful of this issue and reminded Partners that they should
ensure that only cases that are high risk ASB victims should be on the
list.
11.1.4
Partners appeared to have a good relationship with each other and
seemed to secure cooperative working. As identified through the
Focus Groups many offenders were either alcoholics, drug addicts, but
most had mental health issues.
Gedling
11.2.1
n
On 21st September 2012, Members attended the Gedling VPP. The
meeting was chaired by the Community Safety Partnerships and
Performance Manager. At this meeting there were 6 new cases
discussed, 21 previous cases reviewed and 8 cases reported on by
the FIP (family Intervention Project) officer. There appeared
appropriate Partnership attendance including Mental Health.
Vulnerable Persons Panel (VPP) includes ASB victims and complex persons
41
o
p
11.2.2
Members were surprised with the volume of cases reviewed by
Partners, with limited time available Partners were under pressure to
consider and agree appropriate interventions. Given the nature of
some of the cases Members felt that there should be greater scrutiny
given to risk assessment to ensure that only high risk cases were
reviewed.
11.2.3
For example, Members were surprised that many cases discussed did
not seem to be high risk ASB victims. Many of the cases discussed
were more about safeguarding the individual than tackling ASB. The
ASB aspects seemed low risk e.g. a 48 year male received emails re
his sexuality; a 32 year old had negative and abusive remarks made
by his neighbour regarding his sexuality; a 41 year old white male
referred to by his neighbour as a ‘boy’ and ‘Taxi driver’.
11.2.4
Members felt that there should be a review of the Risk Assessment
criteria to ensure that only high risk ASB cases were discussed at the
VPP meetings. In many cases it was felt that standard and medium
risk incidents could be adequately dealt with by the lead agency
outside of the Partnership arena. If matters escalated these could be
further risk assessed.
11.2.5
Members also noted that one case reviewed was a classic domestic
violence matter (42 year old son suspected of committing DV against
his 73 year old father). Members felt that this case should have been
risk assessed and routed to the MARAC o as appropriate. This was
also suggested by the Police Inspector present.
11.2.6
In another case, there was no ASB reported at all but a serious matter
of an individual with mental impairment who had a history for chip pan
and other fires. She was identified as a vulnerable person with a high
risk of harm to self and others from fire including her 15 year old son.
This is clearly a safeguarding issue but Members felt that the matter
was best discussed at a dedicated Adults safeguarding meeting.
11.2.7
One of the cases discussed related to a victim who refused to allow
sound monitoring equipment to be installed. With some victims
Members noted that they were quick to complain but seemed
uncooperative to help Partners secure the evidence or prevent further
incidents. This was distinctly different from those who were in fear of
further reprisals.
11.2.8
In general many victims could be described as highly state dependent,
with mental health and or other complex issues who were adversely
affected by alcohol and drugs p.
MARAC - Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference
The rationale behind the Gedling meeting is to deal with vulnerable persons that have the potential to
become ASB victims, thus hopefully preventing those becoming ASB victims. As well as dealing with ASB
victims, vulnerable or otherwise. Gedling Partners agree that some of the issues discussed are more about
Safeguarding. Those cases will be discussed and closed with a referral to safeguarding.
42
11.3
Mansfield
11.3.1
On 23rd September 2012 Members attended the Mansfield VPP. The
meeting was chaired by the local neighbourhood Police Inspector. At
this meeting there were 7 new cases discussed and 21 previous cases
reviewed. There appeared appropriate Partnership attendance
including Mental Health.
11.3.2
However, one of the Police sergeants (Mansfield South) attended late
which meant that a number of cases could not be reviewed effectively.
Even when he did arrive he appeared unprepared and his contribution
was limited. The consequence of this was that a number of cases
were put back a month and in some cases this could mean the victim
having to suffer a further month.
11.3.3
It is uncertain whether this is an isolated incident but it highlights the
importance of not only full representation across all Partnership
disciplines but ensuring that those in attendance are fully briefed and
able to contribute.
11.3.4
However, Members were impressed with the level of written detail
provided to Partners in the update report. This would clearly help
Partners to prepare for the meeting and give them a good indication of
the issues needing to be addressed.
11.3.5
Although Partners stated (when questioned at the end of the meeting)
that many problems were resolved without the need to resort to
enforcement activity, an analysis of the 21 cases reviewed identifies
that 9 of the cases had escalated to Court for either civil or criminal
enforcement (e.g. injunctions, evictions, ASBOs, breaches, criminal
offences). Clearly other interventions may have been implemented but
had failed to work. This supports what victims told Members at both
Focus Groups and when they shared their experiences at Scrutiny
Committee.
11.3.6
Of the remaining 12 cases, 5 appeared resolved when either the
offender (usually facing eviction) or victim decided to move. There was
only one case in which an ABC was in place and no further incidents
had arisen (although it was still early days). There was no take-up of
mediation between neighbours but this is not surprising as the cases
seemed to suggest that the abuse was one sided.
11.3.7
Of the cases remaining many related to individuals who appeared
incapable of looking after themselves and were clearly at risk of being
offended against (e.g. elderly persons and money going missing).
Others were either alcoholics, vagrants, or mentally impaired. These
individuals were in constant need of support.
11.3.8
Members noted contrasting problem solving approaches to incidents.
There were many examples which appeared really effective but others
which surprised Members.
43
11.3.9
For example, in one case reviewed there was a park bench located
outside the victim’s house and used as a focal point for local youths
causing drink, urinating and drug taking related ASB. The victim had
suggested that the bench should be removed but at the meeting
Partners immediately dismissed this idea. In contrast, at the
Partnership Scrutiny meeting the Head of Enforcement in the City
Division told Members that one case of ASB was eradicated simply by
removing a bench frequented by local youths.
11.3.10 There may be good reasons for this inconsistent problem solving
approach but it highlights the benefits of ASB practitioners or at least
chairs of such meetings, meeting to discuss best practice.
11.3.11 In another case involving the local children playing football in the street
outside the victim’s house, it had been suggested to the victim that if
she moved her furniture around she could limit the impact of the noise.
Since Members were aware that playing football in the street was an
offence under the Highways Act 1980 q they found it surprising that this
activity was tolerated. It seemed that since other neighbours (probably
parents) had no issues with this activity the complaint was possibly
considered a lack of tolerance by the victim.
11.3.12 In contrast it wasn’t so long ago that Newark and Sherwood Council
made the papers r because they sent letters to youngsters who had
been found playing cricket, tennis and football in the street warning
they could be arrested and fined up to £100 in a Magistrates' Court.
11.4
q
r
Rushcliffe
11.4.1
On 26th September 2012 the Police Authority attended Rushcliffe
Borough Council (RBC) ASB Working Group monthly meeting which
was chaired by the Neighbourhood Manager.
11.4.2
There was Partnership representation which included Police (north
and south), Adult Mental Health Team, Metropolitan Housing Trust
and RBC Strategic Housing, RBC Community Safety Team and a
member for the family intervention project (FIP).
11.4.3
There were 22 ‘vulnerable people’ cases reviewed 4 of which were
being managed and reported on by the FIP officer.
11.4.4
Partnership discussions focused on both victim and offender. One
particular case had a resonance with what some Focus Group victims
had articulated i.e. that the offender was claiming to be the victim and
had a cunning and intelligence which challenged Partners approaches.
Section 161(3) Highways Act 1980: If a person plays at football or any other game on a highway to the
annoyance of a user of the highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2565392/Children-face-prosecution-for-playing-ball-games-instreet.html
44
11.4.5
In keeping with other Partnership meetings, both victims and offenders
suffering from mental impairment, alcohol and drug addiction were
discussed. However, in contrast to some other Partnerships there was
a greater emphasis on vulnerable people as opposed to vulnerable
ASB victims. The Chair identified this trend and reminded Partners
that the focus of the meeting was to protect victims of ASB.
11.4.6
Members had noticed that this issue was present in other Partnership
meetings. In broad-brush terms the discussions were more concerned
with addressing people’s vulnerability (70%-90%) as opposed to
tackling incidents of ASB which is impacting vulnerable victims.
11.4.7
At this meeting one of the lead Housing Association officers was
present who seemed to take a key role in solving problems associated
with his tenants. He was able to share firsthand tools and powers and
their practical application to emerging problems. For example, he
explained the step by step procedure and legal limitations which would
mean another three months before an injunction and eviction.
11.4.8
His presence highlighted the real benefits of HA’s being engaged at
these meetings.
11.4.9
It appears to Members that persistent offenders (having been evicted
a number of times) seem to become familiar with the limitations of the
procedures and are aware of the boundaries. They are not deterred
from their offending and ASB victims continue to suffer during the
litigation period.
11.4.10 The consequence of this would not only mean further suffering by the
victim but continued deployment of Partnership resources. The local
Police are well aware of this issue and at this meeting argued for a
certain offender to remain on the Partnership list in an attempt to
ensure that he was not be able to return to the area i.e. be given
accommodation by the HA or Council who currently check the list.
11.4.11 Again this issue supports the case for introducing an offender
management program around evicted (or would be evicted) ASB
Offenders.
11.4.12 There were a few cases which crossed geographic boundaries e.g.
that the City ASB team were compiling a prosecution case to ban a
Rushcliffe tenant/offender from the city centre. Another case involved
an offender embroiled in ASB/crime in Gedling. This highlights the
point that offenders do not limit their ASB behaviour to the home (they
take it with them).
11.4.13 This being the case, prolific and persistent ASB offenders who either
get evicted or move of their own volition are most likely to continue
their offending albeit with new victims. Therefore, this might suggest
that in reviewing an ASB case for the first time, that the alleged
offender’s history be reviewed and if there is evidence that they have
failed to respond to previous ‘ask’ and ‘warn’ procedures that
enforcement steps be taken.
45
11.5
s
t
u
Broxtowe
11.5.1
On 4th September 2012 a Member of the Police Authority attended
Broxtowe VPP.
11.5.2
The Police were in attendance but as the division is split in two the Sgt
could only answer questions on his area. The other area was
represented by a PCSO who had sent information in advance but was
not there at the start of the meeting to address any questions. This
meant that issues could not be fully resolved. In addition, Partners
expressed a view that there should be more senior Police
representation as the PCSO could not agree to any suggested actions.
11.5.3
The Police Authority Member felt that problem solving lacked depth
e.g. in some cases it seemed that cases were left until there is was an
arrestable offence s committed or some further relevant issues come to
light before the next steps could be taken.
11.5.4
One of the cases reviewed highlighted the difficulties of dealing with
offenders who have a mental health disorder. In this case the Police
were unable to interview an offender arrested because he was
deemed to be unfit for interview t. The Police and Criminal Evidence
Act 1984 (PACE) stipulates that evidence obtained must be reliable. u
11.5.5
Given the prevalence of mental health as an issue arising out of the
Focus groups and Case Studies for both victims and offenders, these
additional legislative safeguards present challenges for Partners even
where enforcement action is taken.
11.5.6
In these circumstances it is likely that the offender would be released
without charge and without alternative interventions to control his
behaviour, it is likely that he will continue to cause further ASB. This
further emphasises the need for Mental Health practitioner support.
Sadly, there was no such representation at this VPP to provide advice
and support.
11.5.7
Other cases reviewed highlighted the difficulties in securing the
support of certain Housing Associations. In addition, the reluctance of
witnesses to give evidence limited Partnership action. This again
emphasises the need to consider alternative means to secure
evidence and improve community cohesion in these neighbourhoods.
In England and Wales, the category "arrestable offence" ceased to exist with the advent on 1 January 2006
of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, but is still commonly used.
Paragraph 1.4 of Code C states: ‘If an officer has any suspicion, or is told in good faith, that a person …
may be mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable, in the absence of clear evidence to dispel that
suspicion, the person shall be treated as such for the purposes of this Code.’
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE): Code C, Annex G: A detainee may be at risk in an interview
if: (a) conducting the interview could significantly harm the detainee’s physical or mental state; (b) anything
the detainee says in interview about their involvement or suspected involvement in the offence about which
they are being interviewed might be considered unreliable in subsequent court proceedings because of their
physical or mental state.
46
11.6
City
11.6.1
The City Division has three Complex People and Panel and Domestic
Abuse Repeats Panels North, Central and South. On 16th October
2012, Members attended the City Central meeting which was chaired
by Community Protection’s Operations Manager.
11.6.2
There was a cross range of Police representation (local Inspector,
Sergeant, Beat Manager and PCSO) who were there to provide
updates on specific cases they were leading on. Other Partnership
representation was not as extensive as other Partnerships and it was
noted that Mental Health were not represented and apparently not for
some time.
11.6.3
Compared to other Partnership meetings there were less cases
reviewed which was surprising given the complexities of inner city
living and higher ASB rates. That said, it did allow more in-depth
discussions on each case albeit relating mainly to safeguarding issues
about people who could not look after themselves or their homes, the
mentally impaired, alcoholics and people suicidal.
11.6.4
At this City meeting one of the cases highlighted the limitations of
Partnership working when there is no Mental Health representation.
Although there were fewer cases discussed, many had mental health
issues present. Consequently, Partners appeared to struggle with
possible solutions. Although the chair of this meeting had an excellent
understanding of wide ranging Partnership tools and powers which
helped shape alternative interventions.
11.6.5
One case discussed involved an individual who had obvious mental
health issues who called the Police 327 times over recent months. In
addition, following a number of these visits this individual made official
written complaints about Police officers attending. The way the letters
were hand written and the content made it clear to Partners that there
was no obvious foundation to the complaints and yet the Police were
required to investigate the matters.
11.6.6
This case highlights the huge drain on both Police and Partnership
resources and unless there is an appropriate intervention by mental
health practitioners to address this individual’s mental health, it is likely
that resources will continue to be deployed unnecessarily.
11.6.7
A number of other cases highlight the difficulties where an individual
with apparent mental health issues does not easily fit into conventional
pathways i.e. does not have a GP, or refuses to engage voluntarily.
For example, it was explained that the route to mental health services
was through the GP and a comment was made that the GP could not
help as the person being reviewed failed to make any appointments.
11.6.8
The link between mental health, ASB and crime is not new and
perhaps explains why PCTs (Primary Care Trusts) in England became
“responsible authorities” under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,
47
following amendments by the Police Reform Act (2002), on 30th April
2004.
11.6.9
Following these legislative changes, in their foreword Hazel Blears MP
and Melanie Johnson MP issued ‘Guidance for Partnerships and
Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) v’ which explained what was now expected
of PCTs.
11.6.10 The guidance made it clear PCTs now have a statutory responsibility
to work in Partnership with other responsible authorities, namely the
Police, fire and Local Authorities and cooperating bodies to tackle
crime, disorder and the misuse of drugs.
11.6.11 The guidance made it clear that offending and problematic drug and
alcohol use are strongly associated with poor educational
achievement, low literacy levels, mental health problems, dual
diagnosis, poverty, deprivation, discrimination and unemployment.
Tackling these factors can lead to improved health outcomes.
12
v
FINDINGS TO SCRUTINY QUESTIONS
12.1.1
Victims who attended the Focus Groups probably reflect the more
vulnerable members of our communities. Their willingness to
participate in these Focus Groups and share their experiences, and
with regard to what they said and the way they said it, gave Members
a sense that they were still seeking solutions to their problems and
desperately wanted things to change.
12.1.2
Despite the media stereotype of ASB being committed by youths in the
street, the main finding of this Scrutiny is that neighbours are the
predominant perpetrators arising from these Focus Groups, Case
Studies and in the Best Practice Case Studies.
12.1.3
Neighbours who are evicted or move voluntary go on to abuse or
cause further problems for new neighbours and so Police and Partners
need to consider problem solving and possible offender management
interventions which would follow the offender. The problem is not
necessarily resolved simply by moving the offending tenant to another
district. If no changes are made the cycle of offender and the drain on
resources will continue. Offenders fully understand the boundaries in
which they can operate.
12.1.4
Victims who suffer ASB caused by a neighbour are likely to have far
more long term and emotional impact on their worries and concerns
leading to the kind of distress observed during the Focus Group
meetings. It is very personal unlike ASB which occurs generally in the
street. They live next door so victims are not going to move on or
move away and in any event are likely to be difficult to re-house.
See http://www.bipsolutions.com/docstore/pdf/7849.pdf
48
12.1.5
The problems cited may not have started as ASB so victims may have
decided to let it continue for a long while before reporting it or trying to
do anything about it. The problems may not have started as criminal
behaviour so unlikely to attract attention of anyone else including
Police.
12.1.6
The Scrutiny Committee noted that there were similarities between
victims of neighbourly ASB and victims of domestic abuse where
victims on average allow incidents to go unreported up to 35 times
before taking action. In addition, this Scrutiny Committee has identified
that victims of neighbourly ASB taking part in the Focus Groups have
been victimised 60 times on average over 3.5 years.
12.1.7
This is clearly unacceptable and the Scrutiny Committee would invite
the Police and Partners to review their approach when dealing with
neighbourly ASB repeat victims and make radical changes to improve
and speed up the evidence gathering process.
12.1.8
The Police and Partners should place a greater emphasis on
enforcement, adopting the twin track approach (civil and criminal) used
in the City Division, provide better support to victims by establishing or
continuing to use a Victim Support ASB Case Workerw.
12.1.9
Multiagency training should be undertaken so decision makers are
fully aware of the range of tools and powers available (both civil and
criminal) to tackle neighbourly ASB.
12.1.10 Increased efforts should be made to engage Housing Associations
and Private Landlords where their tenants breach tenancy
agreements. Local Authorities have civil litigation expertise and should
provide support to Private Landlords and smaller Housing
Associations.
12.1.11 Police and Partners should revise the risk assessment process to
ensure that only high risk ASB victims are reviewed. All Partners
should consider working outside current polices in exceptional
circumstances.
12.1.12 Evidence obtained at each stage of this scrutiny has identified that
mental health issues for victims and offenders are significant and
should be fully reviewed and discussed with the PCT and Health and
Wellbeing Board and solutions presented to the PCC.
12.2
Non Court Interventions
How effective are ‘non court’ interventions in resolving neighbourly
incidents of ASB?
12.2.1
w
Although a number of Partners reported that non enforcement action
was effective in resolving ASB problems, in the majority of Case
This post was not provided by the Victim Support Service.
49
Studies examined it was only when enforcement action was taken at
Court that the offender’s antisocial behaviour stopped.
12.2.2
This Focus Group finding was consistently identified in Case Studies
and testimonies of victims attending Scrutiny as well as best practice
Case Studies presented by Partners.
12.2.3
Members heard no evidence to suggest that Police verbal warnings to
neighbours were effective; in fact many victims told Members that their
problems got worse afterwards. Although offered and declined, there
was no evidence to show that mediation was effective either.
However, Members did question the appropriateness of offering
mediation when clearly the evidence suggested that the abuse was
one sided.
12.2.4
Warning letters to residents indicating that enforcement action would
be taken did stop incidents for a few months in one Case Study.
12.2.5
Although there were numerous incidents of noise complaint, Members
found that there were only a few examples where enforcement action
could (or was) taken. The legislative review helped to explain the
limitations of securing evidence which will constitute ‘statutory
nuisance’.
12.2.6
As a generalisation, and in light of the case law, it would seem that
40% to 50% of incidents reported as ASB by victims do not in fact
constitute any offence despite victims perceiving it as ASB and clearly
being affected by it.
12.2.7
Although sound recording equipment was deployed on many
occasions and victims asked to keep diaries of incidents, it seems to
Members that the huge efforts made to secure evidence for statutory
noise nuisance never materialised.
12.2.8
It is unclear to Members whether this is due the statutory limitations or
capability of the sound recording equipment currently used. Either
way, the logic of this finding is that pursuing noise nuisance is not
currently effective and in order to resolve ASB incidents more
speedily, Police and Partners should place a greater emphasis on
securing evidence for other aspects of ASB if present e.g. harassment.
12.2.9
In addition, Police and Partners need to be fully aware of the
limitations of the statutory nuisance case law so they can explain to
this to victims at the time of attendance so as not to build up their
expectations or leave the impression that they are simply failing to
take action.
12.2.10 For example, the legislative review has helped to explain why many
ASB cases seem to have continued for so long. Victims complain of
neighbourly noise which is reported to Police or Partners but since
there is no evidence of statutory nuisance no action can be taken.
50
12.2.11 As already reported, case law suggest that no action can be taken for
lifestyle noises such as footfalls, dropping objects/moving furniture,
light switches being switched on/off, general talking, shouting and
singing, except in cases where disturbance is caused frequently at
night (after 11pm and for prolonged periods), slamming doors, toilet
flushing, babies crying and children playing.
12.2.12 In addition, a review of the case law concerning statutory nuisance or
noise occurring after 11pm suggests that some of what victims have
complained about even if secured by independent means would not be
considered statutory nuisance.
12.2.13 The Home Office defines ASB as “any aggressive, intimidating or
destructive activity that damages or destroys another person's quality
of life”. Since this is not a specific offence, Police and Partners have to
look for evidence to warrant civil enforcement or criminal offences. The
current civil litigation process is much slower than the criminal route
although the Home Office claim that the new ASB tools and powers
will speed up this process.
12.2.14 Given the limitations of proving statutory nuisance, it seems that the
Police may need to consider greater utilisation of the Protection from
Harassment Act (1997) which is a criminal offence. Analysis of the
Case Studies identifies that the type of ASB often includes both civil
and criminal elements often in different proportions.
12.2.15 An incident which may contravene the Harassment Act (1997) requires
proof that the offender pursued a course of conduct which amounts to
harassment of a person.
12.2.16 Although the victim perceives any kind of noise as ASB, obtaining
evidence which is above and beyond ‘noise from the ordinary and
reasonable use of residential premises’ is difficult to prove.
12.2.17 This poses a dilemma for Police and Partners since victims have no
regard to what constitutes statutory nuisance - they simply perceive
this outcome as a lack of enforcement action. This issue further
emphasises the importance of Police and Partners seeking to secure
criminal evidence at an early stage if present.
12.2.18 Members noted that it was only when the offender’s behaviour
escalated that evidence was secured and enforcement action taken.
After Court action, not only did the criminal behaviour stop but so did
the noise which was not necessarily statutory nuisance. In a perverse
way, in most cases reviewed they had to get worse before they got
better.
12.2.19 A number of victims stated that the reason that noise was such a
problem was due to the poor sound insulation between houses. One
victim had requested that the Housing Association install better sound
insulation but this was declined.
51
12.2.20 Given the prevalence of neighbourly noise and its impact on victims, a
significant preventative approach might be making changes or
ensuring compliance to existing Building Regulations.
12.2.21 In September 2006 DEFRA published a guide x to Local Authorities to
help them tackle a range of noise generators. The guidance identifies
that research specifically investigating neighbour noise was
undertaken in 2003 by MORI y on behalf of DEFRA. The conclusions of
the study included the following:
“Nearly two thirds (63%) of people surveyed claimed that they heard
noise from their neighbours. The study also found that just under half
(46%) of those who heard noise were annoyed by it. This equates to
nearly one third (29%) of the population as a whole”.
“Neighbour noise is, therefore, a problem that can arise under certain
circumstances and in specific ‘risk areas’. Risk factors include high
density housing, rented accommodation (in both the social and private
sectors), areas of deprivation, and urbanisation. In contrast, the profile
of those less concerned by neighbour noise is consistent with
circumstances”
12.2.22 E2 of the Building Regulations (2000) – Approved Document E (2003
edition)z makes a requirement that sets standards for the sound
insulation of walls and floors in dwelling houses, flats and rooms for
residential purposes. Although site testing is not a requirement, given
the significance of neighbourly noise, it seems most sensible that
steps be taken to design out all opportunities for noise ASB.
12.2.23 Under Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 aa, Local
Authorities (LAs) have a duty to consider the impact of all their
functions and decisions on crime and disorder (ASB) in their local
area; LAs need to do all that they reasonably can to prevent, crime
and disorder in its area including ASB bb.
x
y
z
aa
bb
DEFRA (Sept 2006) Neighbourhood Noise Policies and Practice for Local Authorities – a Management Guide
See www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/research/mori/index.htm Neighbour Noise – Public Opinion
Research to Assess its Nature, Extent and Significance, MORI Social Research Institute for DEFRA, October
2003
The Building Regulations 2000 Approved Document E (2003 edition) - E1 states performance standards are
given for walls, floors and stairs having a separating function, in new buildings and buildings formed by
change of use. Site testing of sound insulation is intended on a sampling basis. E2 states - this is a new
requirement that sets standards for the sound insulation of walls and floors in dwelling houses, flats and
rooms for residential purposes. Site testing is not intended
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 - ‘Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed on it, it
shall be the duty of each authority to which this section applies to exercise its various functions with due
regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can
to prevent, crime and disorder in its area.’
Following consultation on this report, one Borough Council reported that they were surprised that issues
relating to building regulations formed part of the ASB scrutiny report. However, given that noise generated
by neighbours was the catalyst to many subsequent ASB incidents, the Chair of this scrutiny Committee is
keen to ensure that ASB is prevented as far as possible. Had greater attention been paid to this issue it is
possible that many incidents could have been prevented. In addition, Building Control Inspectors may not
be aware of the magnitude of the problems identified in this report and drawing attention to the issue may
encourage greater attention to this regulation.
52
12.2.24 Following consultation, Rushcliffe Borough Council explains that their
Building Control Department has to take enforcement action within 12
months from the time they become aware of a problem. If a problem
become apparent before the issue of a Certificate of Completion the
Local Authority response would be to delay issuing until the problem is
put right. Unfortunately once a certificate has been issued it is not
possible to take enforcement action – this point also emphasises the
importance of placing even greater attention to the E2 Regulation.
12.2.25 Nevertheless, Members believe that LA Building Control Officers
should place a greater emphasis on ensuring compliance with E2 of
the requirements of the Building Regulations 2000 by undertaking
sample sound insulation testing for new and converted buildings in
respect of dwellings/flats with adjourning walls. In doing so, they will
be designing out potential for noise ASB for future years cc.
Recommendation 1: In order to resolve neighbourly ASB
incidents more speedily, Police and Partners should place a
greater emphasis on securing evidence for other aspects of ASB
if present e.g. harassment as opposed to noise nuisance.
Recommendation 2: The Force and Partners to review the
appropriateness of offering mediation to neighbours where ASB
is generated by one party only.
Recommendation 3: Police, PCSOs and Partners to be made
aware of the limitations and Case Law relating to the statutory
definition of nuisance to help manage victims’ expectations
regarding enforcement actions. Greater emphasis should be
placed on securing evidence for the other aspects of ASB if
present e.g. harassment.
Recommendation 4: Local Authority Building Control Officers
should place a greater emphasis on ensuring compliance with E2
of the requirements of the Building Regulations 2000 by
undertaking sample sound insulation testing for new and
converted buildings in respect of dwellings/flats with adjourning
walls. In doing so, they will be designing out potential for noise
ASB.
Recommendation 5: Where ASB noise appears to be aggravated
by poor sound insulation between adjourning properties, Local
Authorities should consider taking enforcement action against
builders who may have breached Building Regulations.
Environmental Health officers should assess and make the
referral.
cc
Following consultation on this report Rushcliffe Borough Council reported that their Building Control
Department already do this work and insist on a sound test for individual semi-detached dwellings with a
percentage (approx. 25%) tested in the case of larger projects e.g. a block of flats. However, often for
large housing developments, Approved Inspectors are used who are effectively private companies e.g.
National House Building Council, and their insistence on sound testing cannot be verified.
53
12.3
Evidence Gathering Capabilities
What evidence gathering capabilities are in place with Police, Local
Authorities and other agencies to secure evidence to ensure that
incidents of neighbourly ASB are tackled speedily?
12.3.1
In the majority of cases, the victim was responsible for gathering the
evidence either through diary sheets or triggering the sound recording
equipment. A number of victims frustrated with lack of progress
installed CCTV themselves although there is no evidence of any
footage being useful to the Police.
12.3.2
As already stated, evidence to show whether sound recording
equipment is an effective means of tackling neighbourly ASB is limited.
It is unclear whether this is due to the legislative requirements and
case law or the suitability of the equipment deployed.
12.3.3
The typical pattern explained by victims is that an ASB incident takes
place usually involving noise and the Police are requested and attend
but usually long after the incident has stopped so no independent
evidence is secured.
12.3.4
In many cases they do not visit the victim or offender, they simply have
a drive around and then if no incidents are in progress, the officers
resume to other commitments and a message is left for the Beat
Manager. A review of the Police logs pertaining to a repeat victim
supports this view.
12.3.5
This appears to happen over and over again and incidents either
continue over months and years until independent evidence is secured
either by a chance visit or a quicker response from the Police.
12.3.6
Unless the Police are able to attend while the incident is in progress so
as to secure independent evidence, Members question the value in
attending at all. The Force policy for vulnerable victims is attendance
within the hour (grade 2). The cost of responding to every repeat
victim across the county must be enormous and with regard to the
need to ensure value for money, if there are no meaningful outcomes
for victims then this suggests that the policy needs to be reviewed.
12.3.7
Members suggest that the Policy be revised so that ASB cases where
securing evidence is proving difficult and there is strong likelihood that
evidence would be obtained by an immediate Police visit be tagged in
some way so that an incident would trigger a grade1 attendance (i.e.
attendance up to 15 minutes urban and 20 minutes rural).
12.3.8
There were only a few cases where RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000) controlled covert operations were mentioned.
However, given the safeguards of using RIPA and the need for
54
proportionality, this is not surprising given the nature of some of the
complaints dd.
12.3.9
This poses further challenges for Police and Partners as on the one
hand deploying CCTV and suitable sound recording equipment is a
cost effective way of securing evidence in appropriate cases as the
quicker evidence is secured the sooner enforcement action can be
taken which will lead to the cessation of the ASB.
12.3.10 On the other hand, the Government is questioning the appropriateness
of CCTV by public authorities. For example, on 13th September 2012,
the Home Office reported that the public will be given more power to
challenge the use of surveillance cameras by Police and Local
Authorities through the creation of a new code of practice 14.
12.3.11 The first ever Surveillance Camera Commissioner has been appointed
and will report back to Parliament on how CCTV and automatic
number plate recognition (ANPR) systems are being used and raise
any concerns through a report to Parliament ee.
12.3.12 The Home Office Consultation document 15 emphasises that in the first
instance that the Code of Practice will focus on addressing issues
relating to the use of surveillance cameras by the State and other
organisations in areas to which the public have general access. In
other words, the use of such technology in an essentially private,
individual capacity will not initially be a priority.
12.3.13 This being the case home owners wishing to protect their homes or
secure evidence of neighbourly ASB will not yet be subject to
regulation. Although there was some evidence to suggest that some
neighbours felt their privacy was being breached, it seems to Members
that installation of privately owned CCTV might assist Partners to
secure evidence and secure it quicker and should therefore be
encouraged.
12.3.14 Appropriate crime/ASB prevention and detection advice might ensure
that only suitable CCTV cameras are purchased and appropriately
sited to secure evidence without impinging on neighbours’ privacy.
Ideally this advice should be given by a dedicated Partner ff who should
be fully aware of the practical application and legal position.
dd
ee
ff
Following consultation on this draft report, the Corporate Director (Public Protection & Direct Services) for
Gedling Borough Council suggested that the PCC should consider lobbying the Surveillance Camera
Commissioner and or Government to ensure that future guidance or statutory directives allows Local
Authorities and Police to use surveillance equipment to tackle ASB cases identified in this scrutiny; the
current guidance means that LA’s cannot now respond with surveillance equipment to such ASB cases.
Subject to statutory requirements in the protection of freedoms act 2012 and affirmative resolution in
parliament, the code of practice should come into effect in April 2013 and will apply in England and Wales.
Following consultation on this report one Local Authority suggested that the Police should perform the role
of advising victims where CCTV should be installed unless an officer with specific expertise in the field of
fixed domestic CCTV installations exists within a partner organisation.
55
12.3.15 A Big Brother Watch report in August 2012 gg identifies that Bassetlaw
used RIPA authorities 152 times (between 2008-11) and is ranked 10th
nationally. The table below details how many times RIPA has been
used by other Nottinghamshire Authorities.
Authority
Bassetlaw
City
Broxtowe
Mansfield
Gedling
Newark &
Sherwood
Rushcliffe
Ashfield
All RIPA
Authorities
ASB RIPA
Authorities
152
74
33
32
32
13
NK
NK
0
7
3
1
3
NK
1
NK
Comment
th
Ranked 10 nationally
*Includes all RIPAs
No data provided
12.3.16 Although Bassetlaw has significantly more RIPA authorities it is
unclear from the data how many of these were for ASB cases. This is
also true for the City. However, although the data excludes Police
RIPA operations, it does shows that Bassetlaw Council is much more
proactive in the use of RIPA than other authorities in Nottinghamshire.
Where there is data available, RIPA operations to tackle ASB per se
seems very low when regard is given to the volume of incidents and
the nature of incidents which have arisen in the Case Studies
reviewed hh.
12.3.17 At its inaugural meeting on 13th July 2012 the Scrutiny Committee
received a presentation from the Superintendent of the City Division
detailing key aspects of its Partnership prevention plan to tackle an
ASB problem in Bulwell. Interventions included intelligence gathering,
prevention, and diversion as well as enforcement activities.
12.3.18 Supported by Community Protection Officers (CPOs), tactics included
the use of body worn cameras and CCTV to gather intelligence and
evidence, with key offenders identified and targeted.
12.3.19 Members were very impressed with this multi agency intervention
approach which clearly led to ASB reductions. However, Members did
not get a sense that this same degree of action and effort was being
taken with neighbourly ASB although it is appreciated that some
community ASB hot spots impact on more people and there is
rationale in prioritising scarce resources.
gg
hh
A Big Brother Watch Report (Aug 2012) A legacy of suspicion: How RIPA has been used by local authorities
and public bodies (Table 2 - 2008-2011)
Following consultation on this report, one Local Authority reported that they will use RIPA authorisations
when they are considered necessary to allow the installation of covert CCTV. In their experience it is an
investigators judgement call around the need for such evidence collecting methods rather than a simple link
that the number of RIPA authorisations approved equals a more proactive investigating authority. It is their
opinion that this is a rather crude measure of pro-activeness of enforcement. However, Members view this
information as corroborative only as the primary evidence from victims suggested that LA’s should be more
proactive.
56
12.3.20 It was also obvious to Members that since these community problems
were more frequent and occurred in the public domain, evidence
gathering was much easier.
12.3.21 However, with regard to the need to ensure that demand is managed
effectively, Members feel that some ASB cases which have continued
for some time (albeit more difficult to obtain evidence) should warrant
similar action plans or operations. If the lack of evidence is a barrier
then resources should be committed to secure it e.g. allocating a
resource to be present over night to corroborate evidence if that is
when it occurs. In other words investing more resources as part of an
operation may be more effective in securing evidence and negate the
need to continually respond to repeat calls.
12.3.22 Given the limitations of RIPA use, although Members did receive
evidence that enquiries with other neighbours had been effective in
securing corroborative evidence, it was not easily forthcoming. In most
cases it seems that although other neighbours could provide evidence
there was huge reluctance to get involved with many fearing reprisals.
In a few cases it seemed that neighbours suffering the same ASB
were unaware that each had made separate complaints albeit to
different agencies. Again this is another good reason for improving
community cohesion in the locality of neighbourly ASB.
12.3.23 At the Best Practice Partnership Scrutiny meeting on 9th October 2012,
Members were told by many Partnerships that a critical success factor
in securing additional evidence came by funding a dedicated Victim
Support ASB case worker. In Gedling for example, this officer had the
time to gain the confidence of the main victim who eventually gave
statements and evidence in Court. This resulted in convictions for
numerous public order and ASBO breach offences.
12.3.24 A dedicated Victim Support ASB case worker in Bassetlaw was also
critical to reducing ASB. In Broxtowe, this role was undertaken
primarily by the ASB Case worker.
12.3.25 Members were aware that securing evidence in repeat ASB cases
studies proved difficult which meant that Police and Partners were
continually revisiting time and time again without having any impact.
The evidence provided by most of the Partnerships convinced
Members that funding a dedicated Victim Support ASB case worker
was an effective invest to save solution.
12.3.26 In addition, in Case Study 6 although the victims were critical of the
Police, there were a number of occasions where the Police had
arrested offenders and were reliant on the victims to provide evidence
either through statements or identification procedures. They refused
and therefore the cases were discontinued.
12.3.27 One of the cases discussed related to a victim who refused to allow
sound monitoring equipment to be installed. Whilst Members noted
that some victims were reluctant to give evidence due to fear of
repercussions, a few were quick to complain but seemed
57
uncooperative to help Police and Partners secure the evidence or
prevent further incidents.
12.3.28 In both cases, this puts the Police in a no win situation because clearly
if the findings of this scrutiny are correct, only enforcement action
through the Courts will stop the ASB. Unless evidence is obtained
without needing the victims cooperation, the Police will continue to
respond to calls with little prospect of resolution.
12.3.29 Victims said nothing about agencies working with neighbours to create
or develop or improve community cohesion. However, Partners
provide some good examples of where it had been achieved with good
success.
12.3.30 Where victims are reluctant to give evidence (usually through fear or
lack of trust) the Police and Partners need therefore to consider taking
new approaches to either undertaking covert operations to gather
evidence or assigning an independent dedicated ASB worker to
support the victim and help build their confidence and reduce their fear
of giving evidence.
Recommendation 6: Notwithstanding the forthcoming changes to
the Code of Practice regulating the use of CCTV, and with regard
to the importance with which communities place on tackling ASB,
Members would invite Partners to review whether they should be
more proactive in the use of operations ii to secure evidence.
Recommendation 7: Local Authorities and Housing Associations
should review their statutory sound recording equipment and
consider replacing it with more state of the art technology if
existing equipment is no longer fit for purpose.
Recommendation 8: The current Police Attendance Policy should
be reviewed to make the best use of available police officer
resources. If there is a strong likelihood of an arrest, or
gathering evidence then the incident should receive an
immediate police visit and should be classified as a grade I
attendance, (i.e. attendance up to 15 minutes urban and 20
minutes rural). All other ASB calls for service should be
responded through the managed appointment system.
Recommendation 9: The level of RIPA authorities in certain parts
of the County and feedback from victims, suggests that Local
Authorities could be more proactive in RIPA controlled
operations. Local Authorities should consider being more
proactive in this area to help speed up evidence.
Recommendation 10: Police and Local Authorities should not
discourage victims from installing CCTV; instead they should
seek to provide advice to ensure that suitable equipment is
installed and located appropriately to avoid breaches of privacy.
ii
Operations or Action Plans
58
Recommendation 11: Due to the limited resources available to
the police and partner organisations and the range of multiagency forums available, such as MAPPA, MARAC, complex
families and neighbourhood tasking arrangements. A multiagency risk assessment and matrix should be developed to
ensure vulnerable persons panels (VPP) only focus on complex
repeat high risk cases that require a multi-agency response.
Recommendation 12: Dedicated support for victims of ASB was
identified as critical to reducing ASB and building confidence of
victims to provide evidence in court. In a number of cases
funding for these posts has not been confirmed for 2013/14. The
Police and Crime Commissioner and partner organisations
should jointly fund the continuation of these posts.
12.4
Speeding up the Evidence Gathering
What can be done to speed up the evidence gathering process?
12.4.1
The findings of this scrutiny reveal that most neighbourly ASB cases
reviewed, continued for many years as shown in the list below:






jj
Case 1: 12 years
Case 2: 12 years
Case 3: 4 years
Case 4: 5 years
Case 5: 2 years
Case 6: 2 years
12.4.2
The findings of the three Focus groups identified that on average each
victim suffered ASB incidents every three weeks for over 3.5 years.
This equates to 60 incidents over this period and possibly 60 visits by
the response officer followed by further visits by the Beat Manager.
12.4.3
In order to better understand the cost of the repeat visits to the 29
victims taking part in the Focus Groups, and extrapolating these costs
across the county, broad brush calculations based on staffing costs
alone for response attendance (spending just 30 minutes dealing with
the incident including travel) would be in the region of £225kjj. If further
visits by Beat Managers the next day take place these costs would
double. This does not take into account fuel or transport costs.
12.4.4
Although these costs are very broad brush since they are based on
information not currently available, nevertheless if the assumptions are
correct the costs are staggering.
12.4.5
The 2006 National Audit Office Value for Money Report 16 identified
that the cost to Government agencies of responding to reports of ASB
in England and Wales was approximately £3.4 billion per year and
there are significant indirect and emotional costs as well.
Pc full on costs £51.8k, approx availability (less abstractions) of 200 days per year =£37.72 per hr,
assuming each visit 30 minutes only return, incidents every 3 wks= 17.3 per yr, 60.6 over 3.5 yrs,: £17.86
per visit x 60 visits=£1,071 to 29 victims= £31,080 x a factor of 7.25 to reflect county wide= £225,330
59
12.4.6
Most of the victims required huge healthcare and victim support which
intensified as time went on. Unlike other incidents such as burglary or
robbery (which are usually one off events) these ASB victims were
experiencing continual suffering equating to 60 incidents over 3.5
years. If someone was burgled or robbed or suffered domestic abuse
60 times over 3.5 years most people would ask why action was not
taken sooner to stop it.
12.4.7
Clearly, the sooner incidents of neighbourly ASB are stopped the
better for all concerned but most importantly the victim.
12.4.8
If the Case Studies reviewed are reflective of the majority of ASB
victims then this poses a problem for Police and Partners since the
logic of this finding is that the gap between date of incident reported
and enforcement action taken should be reduced as much as possible.
12.4.9
In simple terms, half the time between the first incident and effective
enforcement action (i.e. usually court action) then not only is the
victim’s suffering significantly less, but the demands placed on the
Police, Partners and healthcare will be also be halved resulting in
huge cost savings.
12.4.10 Clearly, existing practices are slow and many ineffective in resolving
the type of ASB cases reviewed by the Scrutiny Committee. The
challenge therefore is for Police and Partners to consider new ways of
speeding up the evidence gathering process. Currently, there is a
heavy reliance on the victim securing the evidence with diary notes.
This issue reinforces the importance of Recommendations 1, 6, 8 and
9.
Recommendation 13: Repeat visits to neighbourly ASB victims
incurs a huge cost to Police, Partners, healthcare and most
importantly the victim; the Police and Partners should therefore
consider new ways to speed up the evidence gathering process.
12.5
Who Should Lead Neighbourly ASB
With regard to the needs of the victim, are the Police the most
appropriate agency to lead on tackling incidents of neighbourly ASB?
12.5.1
A summary of the nature of the ASB Case Studies is summarised
below. In all cases it can be seen that noise was a key problem.
However, in the main it did not appear to be specifically directed to the
victim although complaints to neighbours often led to problems
escalating which then were directed toward the victims.
12.5.2
The local council is the statutory agency for enforcing complaints of
noise but as identified in the legislative review, securing evidence to
prove statutory nuisance is extremely difficult and the finding of this
scrutiny is that it is only when incidents escalate to criminal acts of
harassment or similar that any enforcement can be taken.
60
12.5.3
This paradoxically, seems to suggest that the situation has to get
worse before it can get better. This was certainly the pattern identified
by this scrutiny. The nature of the ASB determined which Partner
should lead. Unless there was any evidence of criminal activity noise
and low level ASB was left to local environmental health or Housing
Associations to deal with.
12.5.4
A brief review of the cases:
Case 1 - noise generated by neighbours and their visitors in the early
hours of the morning as they all partied. Drug vapour came through
the victim’s shared air vent.
Case 2 - typical problems included noise, objects being thrown onto
victim’s conservatory and threats made when challenged as well as
making false counter allegations about the victim to the Police.
Case 3 - children playing their football outside (up to 21), the ball was
hitting victim’s fence, causing a noise and possible damage,
skateboarding, riding scooters, throwing stones and golf balls which
caused minor damage to fencing. Abuse from parents after victims
complained. Subsequent damage caused to the victim’s front door
lock, garden gate, garden ornaments and parked cars.
Case 4 - On a daily basis from morning to night, neighbour would
verbally abuse victim, call her names through the adjourning walls, or
when she was in the garden or going and coming home. He would
bang doors, put the TV on full volume, also try pushing the shared
fence as if to break it down and cause damage to the shared hedges.
Case 5 - stockpiling huge quantities of building type rubbish in the
front garden, demolishing concrete blocks at 8pm, lighting fires in the
garden, leaving his dog unattended which resulted in the RSPCA
being called out; making snide remarks and being abusive and
threatening when challenged about his actions (even to the Police);
the neighbour’s children driving a petrol driven quad bike on his drive
way and drawing a ‘penis’ graphic on the victims wall.
Case 6 - Victims problems relate to both ASB and hate crime caused
by local Asian youths e.g. physical assaults, threats, racist name
calling, throwing dog faeces into their garden, congregating outside
their house including smoking, playing ball games, blocking access
and spitting as they pass.
12.5.5
In the majority of cases reviewed by this scrutiny, there were elements
of both civil and criminal activity and yet victims always contacted the
Police as the first port of call. As already reported, the Force policy
stipulates that any incidents reported by vulnerable/repeat victims are
visited within an hour.
12.5.6
Other than providing assurance to victims, in most cases it seems that
the visit was ineffective in securing evidence especially since the visit
is up to an hour later as the incident had finished much earlier.
61
Furthermore, victims have stated that on many occasions the Police
simply have a drive around and do not visit their home or the
offenders. This issue relates to Recommendation 8.
12.5.7
The City Division advocated to Members the benefits of adopting a
twin track approach (civil and criminal) to resolving neighbourly ASB
cases. In light of the joint nature of typical neighbourly ASB cases
reviewed, this seems an effective approach.
12.5.8
It seems to Members that typically even where the Police are not the
lead agency, victims will still prefer to contact the Police who usually
attend within the hour, and if it is noise nuisance they may ask the
offending neighbour to reduce the noise which may reduce temporarily
but invariably continues as some point afterward.
12.5.9
The Police may advice the victim to keep diary sheets and contact the
Council or Housing Association or Landlord (depending on the tenancy
of the offending neighbour); or may make the referral on their behalf.
12.5.10 If the victim fails to report the matter or the incident is not responded to
appropriately by the Housing Associations or Private Landlord (as the
evidence suggests) then the Police will continue to be called and
resources committed to incidents which they have no powers to
control. It seems to Members that although the Police are not
necessarily the lead agency, they have a vested interest in ensuring
that repeat incidents do not continue. Also, many ASB cases would
not be discussed at the Vulnerable Person Panels.
12.5.11 Members heard evidence that where the Police and Council put
pressure on Housing Associations or Private Landlords to act, this
resulted in quicker responses to the problem. Given the slow time
frame that civil matters are currently operating under, the quicker
Housing Associations and Private Landlords are engaged the better
for the victim’s suffering and the Police who will reduce their demand.
12.5.12 The Police and Partners should establish a procedure for identifying
repeat victims of neighbourly noise ASB and where the landlord is
unresponsive to the victim’s complaints, take steps or provide support
to encourage appropriate action. The Police should determine the
threshold (e.g. 3 or more incidents).
Recommendation 14: District Councils should review and adopt
the working practices of the City Council’s Community Protection
Services twin track approach (civil and criminal) to resolving
neighbourhood ASB cases.
Recommendation 15: The Police and Partners should establish a
procedure for identifying repeat victims of neighbourly noise
ASB and where the landlord is unresponsive to the victim’s
complaints, take steps or provide support to encourage
appropriate action.
62
12.6
Better Support for Neighbourly ASB Victims
What more can be done to support victims of neighbourly ASB
incidents?
kk
12.6.1
A significant finding of this scrutiny is the enormous contribution made
by the Victim Support service. Every victim who received their support
provided unsolicited praise for the workers who had supported them
throughout the process. Whilst staff were not able to resolve all their
problems, they did provide emotional support and a listening ear.
12.6.2
Following a Government consultation earlier this year 17 (‘Getting it
Right for Victims and Witnesses’) Police and Crime Commissioners
(PCCs) will in future be responsible for commissioning locally most of
the emotional and practical support services for victims of crime that
are provided by the voluntary, community and social enterprise
sector kk. These services help victims to cope with and recover from
the impacts of crime.
12.6.3
Clearly, supporting victims in this way should not only continue but be
bolstered further to ensure that more victims can be helped to cope
with the trauma of ASB.
12.6.4
Victims also appreciated a small number of Police, PCSOs and
Partners who did not necessarily solve their problem, but victims felt
believed, listened to and sensed that the officers were willing to do all
that they could to help the victims - although many were not. This is
clearly a training issue which will have an impact on overall customer
satisfaction levels.
12.6.5
An unintended discovery arising out of the Focus Groups was the
unsolicited feedback from victims who explained that they found taking
part in these meetings with other ASB victims very therapeutic. To
know that other people had suffered the same experiences as them in
a surprising way helped them come to terms with what had happened.
12.6.6
This being the case, Police, Partners and Victim Support should
consider establishing such Focus Groups (for victims and reluctant
neighbour witnesses) as part of mainstream activity. In doing so, this
may not only help victims but also reduce fear of giving evidence and
increase the prospect of stronger prosecution cases being complied.
12.6.7
There may be benefit in Victim Support organising focus groups on a
regular basis so that victim do not feel isolated.
12.6.8
Victims were frustrated with having to repeat the history of events to
every new Police officer or PCSO, especially when incidents have
occurred over many years; they expected that officers would either be
PCCs will need to develop strategies for supporting victims, prioritising the needs of victims of serious crime,
those targeted often and the most vulnerable. The bulk of the existing central government funding for
victims and witnesses, currently £66 million each year plus a share of up to a further £50m to be raised
from offenders, will be transferred to PCCs. You can find the original consultation and the Government’s
response here. https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digitalcommunications/victimswitnesses
63
briefed by the Control Room or research the history themselves before
attending. This gave them the impression that previous calls had not
been recorded or the officer attending had no interest investigating the
matter. Either way, victim satisfaction was adversely affected.
12.6.9
Members are aware that since repeat ASB victims will receive a grade
2 response this was likely to be the local response officer who may not
be aware of the issues as intimately as the local beat manager.
However, Members felt that officers attending should be aware as this
may well change how they respond to the incident.
12.6.10 Recommendations in other sections also relate to providing better
support for victims.
Recommendation 16: The Chief Executive of the Police Authority
to brief the PCC on the issues arising out of this scrutiny
especially those which pertain to the victim, so he can take this
into account when he develops his strategy for supporting
victims in 2013.
Recommendation 17: The Force and Partners to consider
enhancing training for frontline staff in interpersonal skills
especially victim empathy to improve victims encounter and
satisfaction levels.
Recommendation 18: Police, Partners and Victim Support should
consider establishing Focus Groups (for victims and reluctant
neighbour witnesses) as part of mainstream activity.
Recommendation 19: The Force should consider introducing
procedures which would allow officers attending repeat victims
of neighbourly ASB to be briefed on the history of incidents.
12.7
Use of Surveillance Equipment
What technological equipment is available to Police and Partners to
tackle neighbourly ASB e.g. surveillance equipment or similar?
12.7.1
When questioned about barriers preventing victim problems being
solved, victims cited the lack of evidence as the main reason. Victims
felt that the onus was on them to obtain the evidence which they had
great difficulty securing and this is why the problems continued for so
long. There were only a few examples where either the Police or Local
Authorities took any proactive surveillance work and given the
importance of securing evidence Members were surprised.
12.7.2
Victims stated that there was little said other than keeping a diary in
respect of ways in which evidence could be secured. For example,
CCTV was deployed in only a couple of instances and even then it
appeared that it had not been deployed appropriately and so evidence
of ASB was not captured.
64
12.7.3
Although there were only a few occasions where it appeared to have
been used, victims were clearly not impressed. Some victims
explained that the sound recording device was left with them to
operate and that by the time they got to the machine to switch it on,
the neighbourly ASB noise had stopped. Unlike music generated by a
party or discotheque, noise from neighbourly ASB was intermittent and
difficult to capture. In these circumstances it is not surprising that no
statutory nuisance evidence was secured.
12.7.4
Other victims explained that following an assault incident, when the
CCTV device was reviewed, it had failed to record any footage and
victims questioned whether it had been tested before installation.
12.7.5
There were a few examples where officers from the Local Authorities’
Environmental Health deployed sound recording equipment where
noise was an issue. There was limited evidence provided to suggest
that it was effective in securing evidence of neighbourly noise although
there was a good example in the City Division where it had been used
effectively for securing evidence to prove statutory noise coming from
a loud discothèque in the City centre.
12.7.6
The limited number of RIPA authorisations referred to in section
12.3.13 appears to support the lack of surveillance utilisation by Local
Authorities. There was no evidence provided to show that the Police
used any technological equipment either overtly or covertly to tackle
neighbourly ASB although it was used to tackle ASB community
problem.
12.7.7
With regard to the findings of this scrutiny, Members consider that
surveillance equipment could be used more proactively to speed up
independent evidence gathering. With advancements in technology
Members would advocate Police and Partners exploring whether there
are improved technological solutions available to aid evidence
gathering. Any capital investment would be offset by savings made
through reducing the repeat demands for call and most importantly will
assist in improving victim satisfaction ll.
12.7.8
These issues further support Recommendations 6 to 9.
Recommendation 20: Police and Partners should explore whether
there are improved technological solutions available to aid
evidence gathering in tackling neighbourly ASB.
ll
Feedback on this report from Rushcliffe Borough Council identifies a difficulty that small enforcement teams
encounter i.e. a lack of expertise for processes that are only required on an occasional basis e.g. covert
installation of CCTV, which makes it slow and may explain why in certain cases investigating officers may
avoid it. The LA suggests that the maintenance and installation of covert CCTV could perhaps best be
supplied by a local private security company that all partners fund on a ‘pay as you go’ basis. This would
get round the capital costs issue of replacing / updating expensive equipment and would remove the need
for the costly and time consuming maintenance of expertise within organisations. All partners would then
be able to take advantage of this service. Rushcliffe argues that if enough demand was established then it
may be possible to achieve a saving County wide whilst improving the reliability and speed at which CCTV
can be deployed.
65
12.8
Training in ASB Tools and Powers
How do the Police and other Partner organisations in dealing with ASB
equip their frontline staff to learn about their ‘tools and powers’
available to them and Partners both now and the future (both civil and
criminal)?
12.8.1
The outcome from the Focus Groups suggested that there was a lack
of professional knowledge with Police officers and PCSOs tasked to
deal with ASB incidents.
12.8.2
Aspects of what some victims told Scrutiny Committee seemed to
support this view with some officers being unaware of the legal
position concerning CCTV legislation and its linkages to the Human
Rights Act e.g. right to privacy under Article 8. One victim told
Members that staff from a local authority had threatened to take legal
action because he had installed CCTV to protect his property. The
legislative review makes it clear that there are no Regulations or
Codes of Practice governing use of CCTV for private use.
12.8.3
Also, given the nature of the neighbourly ASB with some aspects
being civil and some criminal with a different mixture and proportion for
each incident, Members believe that Police, PCSOs and Partners
should have a good understanding of all the ASB tools and powers
available. However, as detailed in the legislative review section,
Members are mindful that the Government intends to introduce new
powers to tackle ASB.
12.8.4
As identified in the Case Studies, it appears to Members that there is
inconsistent problem solving approaches across Partnerships. One
Partnership decided to remove a park bench which was a focal point
for ASB but another dismissed this idea without question. In another
case one Partnership sent letters to children warning that they would
prosecute if they played football in the street. However, another
Partnership faced with the same problem appeared to consider the
matter a case of intolerance by one victim e.g. kids will be kids.
12.8.5
It is uncertain why there are differences but it seems to Members that
there may be benefits if ASB practitioners hold an annual best practice
event to consider ASB cases resolved through innovative solutions
especially those addressing barriers identified in this scrutiny. This will
be even more relevant when the new ASB tools and powers are
enacted.
12.8.6
Members also noted different levels of expertise and knowledge of
VPP Chairs; those who appeared to have extensive knowledge of
partners tools and powers appeared more effective in directing
discussions and interventions e.g. you could do a property check to
determine that;
12.8.7
This highlighted to Members the importance of VPP chairs and the
need to ensure that they had extensive awareness of all Partnership
powers.
66
Recommendation 21: Members would advocate that all frontline
staff tasked to resolve neighbourly ASB incidents should receive
joint partnership training in the new ASB powers and best
practice solutions both civil and criminal.
Recommendation 22: A Briefing/Crib sheet should be prepared
for all attending VPP/CPP meetings to alert Partners as to the
range of powers at their disposal.
Recommendation 23: Police, Partners and Local Authority
training providers should use the case studies considered as part
of this scrutiny process to test if there are any gaps in the new
ASB tools and powers.
Recommendation 24: VPP chairs should receive bespoke
partnership training to better equip them with extensive
knowledge of partners tools and powers and ASB case
management.
Recommendation 25: An annual Best Practice event should be
organised and attended by Police and Partnership practitioners
(e.g. Community Safety Managers and Neighbourhood Police
Inspectors) to consider innovative solutions to tackling
neighbourly ASB.
12.9
Housing Associations and Private Landlords
What action is taken (or can be) by Housing Associations and Private
Landlords to resolve neighbours suffering ASB?
12.9.1
Victims were extremely critical of both Housing Associations (HA) and
Private Landlords (PLs) for either failing to take action or being
extremely slow. The legislative review identified that as a general rule,
landlords are not responsible for the actions of their tenants as long as
they have not ‘authorised’ the ASB. Despite having the power to seek
a Court Order for eviction when tenants exhibit ASB, Private Landlords
or HAs are free to decide whether or not to take action against their
tenants.
12.9.2
In addition, it appears to Members that HA’s only took action once
there was a provable breach of tenancy e.g. a Court conviction. With
regard to ASB cases involving noise nuisance, in mitigation HA’s have
the same problem as Environmental Health Officers of proving the
offence.
12.9.3
Although there was representation of HAs at most VPP meetings, with
some taking an active role, Partners did agree that there were many
difficulties encountered with a number of HAs and PLs.
12.9.4
Case laws reveals if the victim’s complaint is in respect of noise
nuisance caused by shouting, arguing or swearing or by the deliberate
banging of doors then this will not be deemed statutory noise
67
nuisance. Noise from the ordinary and reasonable use of residential
premises cannot be considered a nuisance.
12.9.5
In this respect HAs and PLs will be unable to take action on behaviour
which is construed as ‘ordinary and reasonable use of the premises’
which could be summarised as ‘ordinary living’ even where victims
perceive this as ASB.
12.9.6
However, Members were satisfied that there were aspects of ASB
which went beyond ‘ordinary living’ and that HAs and PLs should have
taken action or if they did it should have been much quicker. Civil
procedures are slow enough so the sooner it starts the better.
12.9.7
As identified in the legislative review most PLs and smaller HAs lack
the capacity or expertise to take action. Members believe that it would
be in the interests of Partners if they assisted PLs and smaller HAs by
providing advice over legal proceedings for breaches of tenancy. The
cost of procedures under Section 21 for short hold tenants is small
when compared to the cost of policing ongoing ASB problems i.e.
there is an invest to save incentive.
12.9.8
Some Partners argued that Local Authorities should be granted
powers to control irresponsible landlords. The new ASB powers are
supposed to speed up the process of possession.
12.9.9
The real difficulties arise with controlling owner occupiers as they
cannot be evicted. That said, at the Best Practice Scrutiny Committee
meeting the City Partner explained the many owner occupiers who
have mortgages have conditions set by the mortgage lender which
may be another route to controlling poor neighbourly behaviour.
However, Partners believed that proposed new ASB powers do not go
far enough to control the behaviour of owner occupiers.
12.9.10 Although the evictions have resolved the ASB issues in this locality it
is probable that the offenders will continue their ASB behaviour in their
new locality and emphasises the importance of Partners being able to
track historical incidents so that Partners in other geographical areas
can move straight to enforcement action as opposed to following the
ask, warn, enforce escalation procedure commonly adopted.
12.9.11 Members noted that the offender’s behaviour stopped (for the one
victim) following Court enforcement action or when the offender or
victim moved house. Even then Members heard evidence of the
offender causing ASB to new neighbours. It seems to Members that
an eviction is seen as an end result especially if the offender moves to
another district.
12.9.12 That said, victims were critical of HAs who simply moved the offender
around the corner from the victim.
12.9.13 Clearly persistent and prolific ASB offenders who either get evicted or
move of their own volition are most likely to continue their offending
albeit with new victims. Therefore, this might suggest that in reviewing
68
an ASB case for the first time, that the alleged offender’s history be
reviewed and if there is evidence that they have failed to respond to
previous ‘ask’ and ‘warn’ procedures that enforcement steps be taken
immediately. It also suggests that some kind of offender management
program be introduced for the worst type of offenders so that Partners
in new districts are alerted to the previous issues and current control
measures.
12.9.14 Local Authorities could also encourage Private Landlords to establish
a voluntary ‘Trade Association’ so that Membership and attendance
would enable them to obtain a range of information and knowledge on
how best to tackle ASB issues.
Recommendation 26: Partners should consider providing legal
expertise to assist Private Landlords and smaller Housing
Associations by providing advice over legal proceedings for
breaches of tenancy and:
a. Help with the identification of the landlord (land registry
check)
b. Encourage the landlord to take appropriate enforcement
action
c. Advise landlords on drafting suitable terms and
conditions of their tenancy agreement which specifically
tackle breaches of ASB.
d. Assist landlords with advice and support on how to
enforce short-hold tenancy agreements e.g. taking
statements and preparing civil enforcement cases.
Recommendation 27: Chief Executive of the Police Authority to
write to the Home Office and Local Authorities requesting that
Local Authorities and the Police be granted powers to control
irresponsible landlords who fail to take enforcement action
against tenants causing neighbourly ASB.
Recommendation 28: Police and Partners should seek to liaise
with Housing Associations and Private Landlords if applicable to
provide advice on the suitability of relocation of persistent and
prolific offenders who have caused neighbourly ASB.
Recommendation 29: Police and Partners to consider introducing
an offender management program around tenants evicted or
moved for causing neighbourly ASB to ensure that there are
control measures in place (as far as permissible) to prevent
neighbourly ASB with new neighbours.
Recommendation 30: In order to support Recommendation 26,
Police and Partners to consider ways in which an offender’s
history of neighbourly ASB can be tracked across districts.
69
12.10 Effectiveness of Partnership Working
How effective are multi-agency tasking and Partnership arrangements
for tackling repeat and vulnerable victims of ASB?
12.10.1 Members found that in general there was appropriate representation of
partners at most VPPs. There was a concern about Mental Health
representation and this is addressed in the next section. Partners
appeared to have a good relationship with each other and seemed to
secure cooperative working. In all Partnership meetings, both victims
and offenders were noted to suffer from mental impairment, alcohol
and drug addiction.
12.10.2 There was Police representation at all meetings although at one of the
meetings one of the Police sergeants attended late which meant that a
number of cases could not be reviewed effectively. Even when he did
arrive he appeared unprepared and his contribution was limited. The
consequence of this was that action on a number of cases was
possibly delayed.
12.10.3 At another VPP meeting there was only representation by a PCSO
who had sent information in advance but was not there at the start of
the meeting to address any questions. This meant that issues could
not be fully resolved. In addition, Partners expressed a view that there
should be more senior Police representation as the PCSO could not
agree to any suggested actions e.g. commitment of patrol resources.
12.10.4 Members were surprised with the volume of cases reviewed by
Partners in most VPPs; with limited time available Partners were under
pressure to consider and agree appropriate interventions. Members
noted that in a number of meetings it seemed that issues discussed
were more focused on addressing the victims’ vulnerability (e.g.
safeguarding) and issues of ASB seemed very minor and almost
ancillary to the issues.
12.10.5 However, in contrast to some other Partnerships in one VPP meeting
there was a greater emphasis on vulnerable people as opposed to
vulnerable ASB victims. The Chair identified this trend and reminded
Partners that the focus of the meeting was to protect victims of ASB.
12.10.6 Given the nature of some of the cases, Members felt that there should
be greater scrutiny given to risk assessment to ensure that only high
risk cases were reviewed.
12.10.7 Although the Council had put a lot of effort into securing an ASBO for
an offending neighbour, it is unclear why, but the Police did not always
inform the Council of all ASBO breaches. Members felt that
communication should be improved and this issue provides further
justification in the Recommendation 14 concerning establishing a
twin track approach to civil and criminal offences.
12.10.8 There were a number of cases which highlighted the need for all
Partnership agencies to workout outside their standard remit or current
70
policies and procedures. Had Partners not done so, further ASB
victimisation would have continued. Partners need to establish a policy
which allows officers manoeuvrability to bypass certain policies in
exceptional circumstances.
12.10.9 Partners aired some frustration with the current CPS arrangements i.e.
that there was no dedicated CPS Solicitor available for tackling ASBO
breach cases. This may due to the fact that ASBOs are obtained
through Civil Courts and breaches dealt with in the Criminal Courts.
12.10.10 This was a national issue identified some years ago and overcome
when arrangements were put in place for CPS Solicitors to have the
full file of evidence (both civil an criminal) relating to the granting of the
ASBO and evidence of the breach. Practically it was necessary for
CPS solicitors to understand both civil and criminal law relating to the
ASBO.
12.10.11 Further issues relating to partnership working are addressed in
Section 12.8 Training in ASB Tools and Powers.
Recommendation 31: Notwithstanding the proposed changes to
the current ASB Tools and Powers, the Force to liaise with the
CPS to make arrangements to establish a dedicated Solicitor to
prosecute ASBO breaches who should be provided with the civil
evidence leading to the ASBO and evidence of the breach.
12.11 Contribution of Health Organisations
What contribution do health organisations or health professionals
make to resolving issues of neighbourly ASB?
12.11.1 Evidence obtained at each stage of this scrutiny has identified that
mental health issues for victims and offenders are significant.
12.11.2 In a number of Partnerships there was no Mental Health
representative which was vital to many of the cases reviewed. Unless
the PCT provides support at practitioner level, Partners have no
choice but to implement alternative solutions which do not necessarily
provide the best solution.
12.11.3 Where there was representation Mental Health workers appeared to
be of value i.e. there was an example of best practice cited relating to
an offender whose ASB behaviour stopped when his medication was
controlled and when effort was made to engage him in positive
activities.
12.11.4 In another case, local practitioners concluded that mental health is an
enormous problem when dealing with ASB. When combined with
substance misuse, it was difficult to get a solid diagnosis and therefore
specialist services will not take the cases on.
12.11.5 In the same case, three psychiatrists gave very differing views of an
offender’s issues, from a diagnosis of a strong indication of mental
71
health issues that needed to be further investigated, to having no
mental health issues at all.
12.11.6 The practitioner informed Members that trying to get assessments,
when offenders also have substance misuse proved very difficult –
Case workers learned that if a person doesn’t fit neatly into a ‘box’
trying to get them support is very difficult.
12.11.7 One of the cases reviewed highlighted the difficulties of dealing with
offenders who have a mental health disorder. In this case the Police
were unable to interview an offender arrested because he was
deemed to be unfit for interview. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 (PACE) stipulates that evidence obtained must be reliable.
12.11.8 In these circumstances it is likely that the offender would be released
without charge and without alternative interventions to control his
behaviour, it is likely that he will continue to cause further ASB. This
further emphasises the need for Mental Health practitioner support.
Sadly, there was no such representation at this VPP to provide advice
and support.
12.11.9 In another case discussed an individual who had obvious mental
health issues called the Police 327 times over recent months. In
addition, following a number of these visits this individual made official
written complaints about Police officers attending. The way the letters
were hand written and the content made it clear to Partners that there
was no obvious foundation to the complaints and yet the Police were
required to investigate the matters.
12.11.10 Assuming that each incident would take 30 minutes to deal with by
one officer (including travelling time and ignoring fuel and transport
costs), if each of the 22 Neighbourhood Policing Areas had to deal
with a similar individual suffering mental health issues, this would
equate to a cost of £64K. If follow up visits are made and complaints
have to be investigated additional costs will be significant. This is just
one individual, and it begs the question how many more callers
suffering from mental health issues are placing similar unnecessary
demands on the Police service across the county.
12.11.11 Members consider that issues of mental health are having a
substantial adverse impact on Police and Partners ability to tackle
ASB effectively. It seems appropriate that a dedicated partnership task
and finish group should be established to review all of the issues
identified in this scrutiny and in consultation with the Health and
Wellbeing Board make recommendations to the PCC on possible
solutions.
Recommendation 32: The Police and Crime Commissioner
should take the lead to address the mental health issues
identified in this scrutiny report. This work should be completed
in partnership with the Health and Wellbeing Board for
Nottingham and Nottinghamshire.
72
CONCLUSIONS
12.11.12 On the 14th December 2011, the Police Authority approved the
creation of a Scrutiny Committee with the power to review areas
agreed by the Police Authority. Between July 2012 and November
2012 five Members of the Police Authority supported by the
Performance and Policing Policy Officer planned and undertook a
scrutiny of ASB within Nottinghamshire.
12.11.13 The Scrutiny Committee received oral and written evidence from
Police, Partners and victims of ASB on a range of issues. They also
undertook various site visits to Vulnerable Persons Panels (VPP)
where they obtained evidence through observations and questioning.
12.11.14 The findings of this scrutiny are that incidents of antisocial behaviour
have fallen significantly over recent years and victims’ satisfaction has
never been higher. This is clearly due to effective Partnership working
and neighbourhood policing.
12.11.15 Based on the findings of the ASB victim Focus Groups, the Scrutiny
Committee set itself ten scrutiny questions which were used to obtain
further evidence and test the validity of victims’ views.
12.11.16 Although it was not envisaged, the findings of the ASB Focus Groups
narrowed the scrutiny focus to persistent ASB caused by neighbours.
12.11.17 The findings of this report should be considered within this context and
not construed as applicable to all types of antisocial behaviour. In this
respect, the Scrutiny Committee concludes the following in respect of
persistent neighbourly ASB:
•
Non Court interventions seem ineffective for tackling persistent
neighbourly ASB offenders
•
Evidence gathering capabilities of Police and Partners is limited
•
Evidence gathering is slow
•
Tackling neighbourly ASB should be a joint Partnership effort for
tackling civil and criminal matters
•
ASB victims are supported but more can be done
•
Use of surveillance equipment is limited
•
Training in ASB Tools and Powers is needed for both civil and
criminal legislation and case law.
•
Housing Associations and Private Landlords should be more
proactive and supported by Partners
•
Partnership working is effective but could be improved
•
The contribution of Health organisations especially Mental Health
is inconsistent and a major issue
73
•
The cost of responding to repeat ASB calls by Police, Partners,
Health care and Victim Support is enormous.
12.11.18 The Scrutiny Committee makes 32 recommendations which it
considers will not only bring about improved quality of life for victims of
ASB but reduce the Police and Partnership demand and in turn cost of
servicing the significant number of repeat calls.
12.11.19 The Chair of this Scrutiny Committee intends to meet with the ASB
Victims who participated in the Case Studies to feedback to them the
findings and recommendations of this report.
74
13
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1:
In order to resolve neighbourly ASB incidents more speedily,
Police and Partners should place a greater emphasis on
securing evidence for other aspects of ASB if present e.g.
harassment as opposed to noise nuisance. Page 53
Recommendation 2:
The Force and Partners to review the appropriateness of
offering mediation to neighbours where ASB is generated by
one party only. Page 53
Recommendation 3:
Police, PCSOs and Partners to be made aware of the
limitations and Case Law relating to the statutory definition of
nuisance to help manage victims’ expectations regarding
enforcement actions. Greater emphasis should be placed on
securing evidence for the other aspects of ASB if present e.g.
harassment. Page 53
Recommendation 4:
Local Authority Building Control Officers should place a
greater emphasis on ensuring compliance with E2 of the
requirements of the Building Regulations 2000 by undertaking
sample sound insulation testing for new and converted
buildings in respect of dwellings/flats with adjourning walls. In
doing so, they will be designing out potential for noise ASB.
Page 53
Recommendation 5:
Where ASB noise appears to be aggravated by poor sound
insulation between adjourning properties, Local Authorities
should consider taking enforcement action against builders
who may have breached Building Regulations. Environmental
Health officers should assess and make the referral. Page 53
Recommendation 6:
Notwithstanding the forthcoming changes to the Code of
Practice regulating the use of CCTV, and with regard to the
importance with which communities place on tackling ASB,
Members would invite Partners to review whether they should
be more proactive in the use of operations to secure evidence.
Page 58
Recommendation 7:
Local Authorities and Housing Associations should review
their statutory sound recording equipment and consider
replacing it with more state of the art technology if existing
equipment is no longer fit for purpose. Page 58
Recommendation 8:
The current Police Attendance Policy should be reviewed to
make the best use of available police officer resources. If
there is a strong likelihood of an arrest, or gathering evidence
then the incident should receive an immediate police visit and
should be classified as a grade I attendance, (i.e. attendance
up to 15 minutes urban and 20 minutes rural). All other ASB
calls for service should be responded through the managed
appointment system. Page 58
Recommendation 9:
The level of RIPA authorities in certain parts of the County and
feedback from victims, suggests that Local Authorities could
75
be more proactive in RIPA controlled operations. Local
Authorities should consider being more proactive in this area
to help speed up evidence. Page 58
Recommendation 10:
Police and Local Authorities should not discourage victims
from installing CCTV; instead they should seek to provide
advice to ensure that suitable equipment is installed and
located appropriately to avoid breaches of privacy. Page 58
Recommendation 11:
Due to the limited resources available to the police and
partner organisations and the range of multi-agency forums
available, such as MAPPA, MARAC, complex families and
neighbourhood tasking arrangements. A multi-agency risk
assessment and matrix should be developed to ensure
vulnerable persons panels (VPP) only focus on complex
repeat high risk cases that require a multi-agency response.
Page 59
Recommendation 12:
Dedicated support for victims of ASB was identified as critical
to reducing ASB and building confidence of victims to provide
evidence in court. In a number of cases funding for these
posts has not been confirmed for 2013/14. The Police and
Crime Commissioner and partner organisations should jointly
fund the continuation of these posts. Page 59
Recommendation 13:
Repeat visits to neighbourly ASB victims incurs a huge cost to
Police, Partners, healthcare and most importantly the victim;
the Police and Partners should therefore consider new ways
to speed up the evidence gathering process. Page 60
Recommendation 14:
District Councils should review and adopt the working
practices of the City Council’s Community Protection Services
twin track approach (civil and criminal) to resolving
neighbourhood ASB cases. Page 62
Recommendation 15:
The Police and Partners should establish a procedure for
identifying repeat victims of neighbourly noise ASB and where
the landlord is unresponsive to the victim’s complaints, take
steps or provide support to encourage appropriate action.
Page 62
Recommendation 16:
The Chief Executive of the Police Authority to brief the PCC
on the issues arising out of this scrutiny especially those which
pertain to the victim, so he can take this into account when he
develops his strategy for supporting victims in 2013. Page 64
Recommendation 17:
The Force and Partners to consider enhancing training for
frontline staff in interpersonal skills especially victim empathy
to improve victims encounter and satisfaction levels. Page 64
Recommendation 18:
Police, Partners and Victim Support should consider
establishing Focus Groups (for victims and reluctant
neighbour witnesses) as part of mainstream activity. Page 64
Recommendation 19:
The Force should consider introducing procedures which
would allow officers attending repeat victims of neighbourly
ASB to be brief on the history of incidents. Page 64
76
Recommendation 20:
Police and Partners should explore whether there are
improved technological solutions available to aid evidence
gathering in tackling neighbourly ASB. Page 65
Recommendation 21:
Members would advocate that all frontline staff tasked to
resolve neighbourly ASB incidents should receive joint
partnership training in the new ASB powers and best practice
solutions both civil and criminal. Page 67
Recommendation 22:
A Briefing/Crib sheet should be prepared for all attending
VPP/CPP meetings to alert Partners as to the range of powers
at their disposal. Page 67
Recommendation 23:
Police, Partners and Local Authority training providers should
use the case studies considered as part of this scrutiny
process to test if there are any gaps in the new ASB tools and
powers. Page 67
Recommendation 24:
VPP chairs should receive bespoke partnership training to
better equip them with extensive knowledge of partners tools
and powers and ASB case management. Page 67
Recommendation 25:
An annual Best Practice event should be organised and
attended by Police and Partnership practitioners (e.g.
Community Safety Managers and Neighbourhood Police
Inspectors) to consider innovative solutions to tackling
neighbourly ASB. Page 67
Recommendation 26:
Partners should consider providing legal expertise to assist
Private Landlords and smaller Housing Associations by
providing advice over legal proceedings for breaches of
tenancy and: Page 69
a.
Help with the identification of the landlord (land registry
check) Page 69
b.
Encourage the landlord to take appropriate enforcement
action Page 69
c.
Advise landlords on drafting suitable terms and
conditions of their tenancy agreement which specifically
tackle breaches of ASB. Page 69
d.
Assist landlords with advice and support on how to
enforce short-hold tenancy agreements e.g. taking
statements and preparing civil enforcement cases. Page
69
Recommendation 27:
Chief Executive of the Police Authority to write to the Home
Office and Local Authorities requesting that Local Authorities
and the Police be granted powers to control irresponsible
landlords who fail to take enforcement action against tenants
causing neighbourly ASB. Page 69
Recommendation 28:
Police and Partners should seek to liaise with Housing
Associations and Private Landlords if applicable to provide
77
advice on the suitability of relocation of persistent and prolific
offenders who have caused neighbourly ASB. Page 69
Recommendation 29:
Police and Partners to consider introducing an offender
management program around tenants evicted or moved for
causing neighbourly ASB to ensure that there are control
measures in place (as far as permissible) to prevent
neighbourly ASB with new neighbours. Page 69
Recommendation 30:
In order to support Recommendation 26, Police and Partners
to consider ways in which an offender’s history of neighbourly
ASB can be tracked across districts. Page 69
Recommendation 31:
Notwithstanding the proposed changes to the current ASB
Tools and Powers, the Force to liaise with the CPS to make
arrangements to establish a dedicated Solicitor to prosecute
ASBO breaches who should be provided with the civil
evidence leading to the ASBO and evidence of the breach.
Page 71
Recommendation 32:
The Police and Crime Commissioner should take the lead to
address the mental health issues identified in this scrutiny
report. This work should be completed in partnership with the
Health and Wellbeing Board for Nottingham and
Nottinghamshire. Page 72
78
APPENDIX A - Dealing with Anti-Social Individuals
79
APPENDIX B - Dealing with ASB in the Community
80
REFERENCES
1
http://www.nottspa.org/documents/meetings/Police-Authority/14th-December-2011_Item-15-ScrutinyCommittee-Report.pdf
2
http://www.nottspa.org/documents/meetings/Scrutiny-Committee-(ASB)/13th-July-2012_Item-05-Terms-ofReference-of-Scrutiny-Committee-Appendix.pdf
3
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/article-8-the-right-to-respect-for-private-and-family-lifehome-and-corresp.html
4
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/anti-social-behaviour/white-paper/
5
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/SN01012.pdf&sa=U&ei=u71iUJDEDsrQ0QXG9YHgCA&ved=0CBQQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGdfTr5
Sfo50a5ybK5QE-RTvKEwog
6
HC 80-I, Fifth Report of 2004/05 para 270
7
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/harassment-unwanted-letters-and-telephonecalls/protection-from-harassment-act-1997.shtml
8
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/noise/neighbour/documents/bothered-by-noise-060701.pdf
9
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=StatutoryNuisanceSurvey2011%28Final%29.pdf
10
http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2816
11
http://www.kingston.gov.uk/browse/environment/environmental_health/pollution/noise_
nuisance/domestic_noise_nuisance.htm
12
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/noise/
13
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/1
14
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/press-releases/surv-cam-comm-appt
15
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/consultations/cons-2011-cctv/code-surveillancecameras?view=Binary
16
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0607/tackling_anti-social_behaviour.aspx
17
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/pcc/working-with-others/supporting-victims-andwitnesses?view=Binary
81