---

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

Answer

Ms Oona King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department will take to encourage social landlords to take more enforcement measures against anti-social tenants; and what assessment he has made of the implications for the Anti- Social Behaviour Action Plan of the awarding of costs against the housing association in the case THCH v. Mr. Joseph Loomes. [134580] Keith Hill: I have been asked to reply. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is extending the range of tools that social landlords can use to tackle anti-social behaviour. These include broadening the range of landlords who can take out injunctions against tenants who behave in an anti-social manner, introducing a power for social landlords to demote secure and assured tenants to a less favourable form of tenancy, and generally ensuring that the responses to anti-social behaviour are appropriately focused on the needs of the community. In addition, social landlords will be required to prepare and publish policies and procedures in relation to anti-social behaviour, which will be available to tenants and other residents. It is the responsibility of social landlords to ensure that they use the appropriate enforcement measure to address the variety of anti-social behaviour cases that may arise. However, the general purpose of the measures in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill is to encourage and facilitate social landlords taking a more active approach in their dealings with anti-social behaviour. The definition of anti-social behaviour used in Part 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill refers to conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance rather than behaviour which has actually caused nuisance or annoyance to named individuals. This makes it clear that landlords can use evidence from people other than the direct victims of the behaviour in proceedings for injunctions or demotion orders. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister hopes that this will encourage more social landlords to be proactive in their management of such behaviour, for example by using professional witnesses in situations where individual victims are too scared or intimidated to give evidence. Regarding the specific case mentioned, it does not have any significant implications for the Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan, as the judgment is specific to that case. However, the broadening of injunctive powers included within the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill mentioned earlier should make it easier for registered social landlords, including Tower Hamlets Community Homes, to undertake successful court action.

Secondary information

Type

Written question

Reference

134580; 412 c431W;412 c439W

Session

2002-03

Subjects

Anti-social behaviour Council housing Evidence Enforcement Housing associations Landlords Injunctions Nuisance Powers Social rented housing Tenants Tenancy agreements

Legislation

Anti-social Behaviour Bill 2002/03

Link

View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk