Cruel to be kind?

No alternatives to eviction that may have helped this so-called "troublesome tenant" and not just her neighbours were discussed. The neighbours, and you, did not care what happened to her as long as it wasn't anywhere near you.

Nowhere in the article does it mention any counselling, drug rehabilitation or any other practical assistance being offered to Helen. She was just conveniently dehumanised.

It is entirely possible that Helen became homeless or became once again embroiled in drugs and prostitution.

My problem is not just with this case. It is with the increasingly punitive treatment of people in dire need of help. I wonder if recent talk among registered social landlords of accommodating a "better-class tenant" has influenced this disregard for those in need of support?

Adam Greenwood: Dear Peta, I did not describe Helen as a "troublesome tenant"; that was the editor's choice of words. I would have described Helen as "nightmare": "hellish", "selfish", "abusive" and "often violent".

By the time I became involved in the case, two neighbours were nearly out of their minds with lack of sleep and distress. Another had already left her flat, taking her one-year-old child to live elsewhere.

Helen never discussed with her landlord the problems she was causing. She was repeatedly warned in writing about the allegations and about the risk to her tenancy. But she never once showed that she would or could take seriously her responsibilities as a tenant and as a neighbour. Despite knowing the damage she was doing to others, she chose to continue taking drugs, chose to bring men home to her flat for sex and she chose to have violent and explicit arguments with her visitors in the middle of the night.

Once the case was properly under investigation, the housing officer's attempts to make contact with Helen were extensive and thorough. But there is a limit to the amount of time any housing officer has and tenants, too, have responsibilities.

If they fail to address these, they put themselves at risk.

Remember that throughout all these efforts to speak with Helen, the misery and distress to her neighbours and to the wider community continued. My only concern was to stop this antisocial behaviour as quickly as possible, and to allow good tenants to live a normal and peaceful life. If evicting Helen happened before we could change her behaviour, so be it.

It's tough but fair.

As a housing professional I have seen how damaging alcohol and drug addiction is to people and their families. I am sure that unless Helen accepts she needs help and that she has a serious problem, she will never hold on to a tenancy. Her dangerous and chaotic lifestyle will continue and she will never become a responsible member of the community in which she lives.

PW-D: Dear Adam, if you were addicted to drugs, would you be in control of your "choices", as you seem to expect Helen to be? I don't believe she "chose" to take part in prostitution. To say that she did this "despite knowing the damage she was doing to others" is to disregard the damage she was doing to herself.

A housing provider has a responsibility to its vulnerable tenants; it failed to fulfil this responsibility with regard to Helen and in doing so it also failed her neighbours. Had Helen got the rehab, detox or other support that she needed, it is quite possible that there would have been at least a marked reduction in antisocial behaviour.

I fail to see what purpose eviction serves other than to move the problem from the doorstep of one group of people to that of another – and to send a person in need of help to look elsewhere. However, every new proposal and policy seems to be focused on this approach, despite the distinct lack of evidence to show that eviction and possession action cuts antisocial behaviour.

Alongside this focus on the "tough" of the much praised "tough love" approach, however, there are organisations running projects that focus on the more important second part of that phrase: Shelter's Inclusion project, the Impact scheme in Little Horton, West Yorkshire and the government's On Track programme, for example.

These schemes receive little publicity, yet they seem to work. Antisocial behaviour is reduced and people make fresh attempts at education and community involvement. It would seem sensible, then, for housing providers to invest in prevention through projects such as these, rather than spend their money on expensive antisocial behaviour orders and possession proceedings.

AG: Dear Peta, we all have to take some responsibility for our actions, tenants included. In any successful community there have to be clear boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour that must apply to everybody. I believe the mark of a compassionate, civilised society is how well we police these boundaries.

I totally disagree when you say that eviction of antisocial tenants serves no other purpose than to remove the problem from "the doorstep of one group of people to that of another". There will be a small proportion of tenants who cannot and will not stop causing nuisance to others regardless of what support they receive and what warnings they have had. Failure to evict them causes greater damage to the community than the damage done to a person who is evicted.

I am not aware of any research conducted into the future behaviour of evicted tenants. From my own experience, however, I know that some do carry on causing serious problems, but others stop – and many more tenants and potential tenants also stop causing problems because they see that there are very real and serious consequences to their actions.

The lesson of the past 10 years is that the priority of the neighbour and of the community has to take precedence over the priority of the individual.

Yes, we should concentrate on early intervention, we should continue to support people in their tenancies and we should always explore innovative ways of providing this support. But there must be a timetable. There must be enforcement of obligations at some point. There must be accountability for serious antisocial behaviour on the part of those who perpetrate it and there must be respite for the neighbour.

I believe that the direction of antisocial behaviour policy and the role of social landlords in this country have never before been so important, so exciting and challenging.

PW-D: Dear Adam, "exciting" would not be the word I would use to describe the prospect of more people being excluded through the use of ASBOs. Recent policy shifts such as the growing use of introductory tenancies and ASBOs give social landlords more and more control over their tenants.

People who live in social rented accommodation are more likely to experience a range of problems (mental health issues, drug and alcohol dependency, for example) than their better-off, homeowning counterparts. Evidence suggests that eviction simply exacerbates the problems experienced by troubled individuals. Surely the role of social landlords, whose main function is to provide housing to those who cannot afford to buy, should encompass the provision of full support services either directly or through linked providers?

I agree that people are responsible for their own actions. However, it is significantly more difficult for people to take care of themselves and those around them when they have little or no respect for themselves as a result of addiction, prostitution and the extreme hardships that poverty heaps upon individuals and families. Antisocial behaviour is often the result of not having the skills to interact "normally" with society. Should we be punishing this or should we be teaching the skills needed to make our communities better places for all?

The clear boundaries you refer to are indeed important, but once they are stepped over, it is essential to ask why. Rules and boundaries should not be enforced through using only harsh measures but also through reasoning and attempting to tackle the root causes.

Social landlords and related organisations should work together to track what happens to people once they have been evicted. Sharing the information acquired during a tenancy is likely to help resolve the problem instead of shifting it somewhere else. I firmly believe that just because it may be 2% of the community causing these problems, it does not mean we can overlook them or throw them elsewhere because 98% of the community is fine.