Evicting nuisance neighbours ‘may only transplant problems elsewhere’

Evicting nuisance neighbours from council and other ‘social’ housing is sometimes an effective way of dealing with tenants whose extreme anti-social behaviour is blighting the neighbourhood. But research for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that the benefits may prove to be short-lived - especially if those evicted move to privately-rented homes on the same estate.

The first national study of the way that local authorities and housing associations in England deal with neighbour nuisance finds that complaints leading to legal action most commonly concern verbal abuse, unruly children, harassment and violent behaviour. The problems ranged from persistent, low level anti-social behaviour to acts of intimidation and violence affecting the wider neighbourhood.

Three-quarters of social landlords whose practices were examined thought that anti-social behaviour was an increasing problem and all were willing to seek court orders to evict tenants if necessary. Contrary to what many landlords believed, the research team from Sheffield Hallam University also found that an order allowing eviction was the most likely outcome of any legal action for possession. However, housing officers often felt that eviction was only partly effective:

• The underlying causes of anti-social behaviour were not tackled. For example, the vast majority of those taken to court relied on state benefits and had vulnerabilities or special needs, such as mental health problems.
• The problem of neighbour nuisance was transplanted to another street or neighbourhood. Evicted tenants usually turned to private landlords, including some who owned former ‘right to buy’ properties on the same estate.

Caroline Hunter, co-author of the study, said: “It was not uncommon for landlords who thought they had dealt with a problem to find the tenants they evicted moving back into privately-rented accommodation in the same neighbourhood. This was distressing and demoralising for the local community - and all the more so because the council or housing association no longer had any control over action to deal with further nuisance.”

The research was based on a survey of two-thirds of English local authorities and medium to large-sized housing associations (Registered Social Landlords). This was followed up by a series of ten in-depth case studies of landlords’ procedures, plus interviews with individual complainants and perpetrators of anti-social behaviour.

These showed that:

• Tenants who complained about neighbour nuisance often suffered prolonged periods of anxiety and stress. They criticised landlords for delays in taking appropriate action and lack of support - especially if witness intimidation was an issue.
• Defendants who had been taken to court also criticised the way their case had been handled, including lack of rigorous investigation by the landlord, inappropriate action and failure to involve other social support agencies.
• Although a few social landlords kept good records of the complaints they received about neighbours and the way they were handled, most did not. This made it impossible to measure the true scale of the problem.
• Landlords usually took possession proceedings as a last resort after other methods of resolving complaints - including visits by staff, mediation, additional support and warnings - had been explored.
• Two-thirds of landlords said they were willing to make use of recent changes in the law to strengthen the power of injunctions that courts could place on troublesome tenants to prevent problem behaviour. However, in practice few landlords used injunctions because they lacked the necessary skills or knowledge.
• Specialist nuisance teams or officers were seen as crucial to improving the way that landlords dealt with anti-social tenants. As well as providing a more professional and consistent approach, they had a valuable part to play in training and supporting other front-line housing officers.

Judy Nixon, co-author of the study, said: “Our study highlights the need for landlords to make sure that housing officers have the skills, knowledge and resources to undertake thorough investigations and act in a professional manner when confronted with conflicting accounts of events. Without such skills there is a real danger that inappropriate action may be taken, causing distress and frustration to all concerned.”

She added: “Landlords now have wide-ranging powers to tackle neighbour nuisance and there is little evidence that further legal reform is needed. However, there was a strong feeling among those we interviewed that eviction offered a short-term remedy that risked long-term failure. We agree with them that there is greater scope for using injunctions to tackle anti-social behaviour and for better use of support services and improved housing management.”