Misguided measures

Like most people these days, Adam Greenwood has looked at only half the antisocial behaviour story – the second half (“A measured response”, 30 July, page 31).

I take issue with the suggestion, often mooted, that social landlords are responsible for controlling antisocial behaviour. The only person responsible for antisocial behaviour is the perpetrator, and the community is responsible for responding to it.

Secondly, I have heard many times a complainant stating that the landlord “must” do something, but “please do not mention my name”. Many in our society expect others to do something for them at no cost to themselves; in the case of antisocial behaviour, this means making a complaint yet walking away untouched by the effect their complaint has upon RSL staff and the alleged perpetrator. And let’s not forget complaints can turn out to be false or malicious.

I was therefore pleased that Greenwood’s fifth point was a witness-centred ethos. I’d go further: I believe the complainant must be central to the whole process.

Thirdly, discussion of antisocial behaviour always assumes that an RSL can do something. But the complainant and perpetrator may be tenants of different landlords, or either or both may be owner-occupiers. A landlord only has a contractual relationship with its tenants, not with others.

Complaining about one’s neighbour is a serious matter. It can result in someone losing their home or being subject to court action.

If you have a problem that cannot be dealt with by a neighbourly chat over the garden fence, there are a range of statutory and voluntary organisations that may be able to help. But as someone with a problem, you must take some responsibility. You will no doubt feel the need to be kept informed about what others are doing. Lack of information is frustrating. So it is best if you, as the complainant, are central to the whole process, keeping a complete record of all that is done.

In Somerset, some local authorities, landlords and the police have decided upon protocols for action in some instances.

Antisocial behaviour orders are, for instance, the responsibility of the police, and independent landlords will provide a venue for, and chair, meetings discussing acceptable behaviour contracts affecting tenants of other landlords.

As a landlord with a place in this community, we have produced a booklet outlining solutions to, and responsibilities for reacting to, antisocial behaviour. This is aimed, in a tenure-neutral way, at any member of the community, be they tenant or owner-occupier. We will play our part, and we are prepared to take possession proceedings where there is proof of a breach of the tenancy agreement. But taking away someone’s home is a serious matter.

Where the complainant and statutory authorities can supply proof it can be a short and relatively speedy solution. But remember, a landlord can only evict its tenants.

It is when we get involved that we get to the first point in Greenwood’s article. There is much more to antisocial behaviour than that, and I think the continued reference to landlords in articles such as Greenwood’s distracts people from the complete picture.