The 50k eviction

Housing associations have "no excuse" for not dealing with antisocial behaviour, declared Louise Casey, director of the Home Office's antisocial behaviour unit, last month. According to the Home Office, registered social landlords have a responsibility to deal with nuisance tenants, and as certain parts of the Antisocial Behaviour Act come into force later this year, they also have more powers to do it.

But there's a snag: however tough an association gets, it's almost helpless without support from the police and the courts.

Ozay Ali knows this well. As chief executive of Croydon Churches Housing Association, he's spent the past two years trying to evict a woman who tormented her neighbours and the staff at one of the RSL's supported housing schemes. She was finally evicted on 18 May, after more than 30 court orders that cost the association £50,000 in legal fees.

This is more than double the sum Ali would normally expect to spend on a nuisance case, and it doesn't even include the cost of staff time: Ali estimates that it's taken up one day every week of his own time for two years.

He says Croydon Churches' efforts to evict Rebecca Makishero* were hampered by a court system ill-equipped to deal with such complex nuisance cases. "How can the government's antisocial behaviour strategy be delivered if the court system is so sluggish?" he asks. "We end up with one person who's quite smart dragging down a scheme and a whole organisation."

It's an extreme case but it shows the legal barriers landlords can come up against, particularly when the problem tenant doesn't conform to stereotypes. "She's not the archetypal neighbour from hell – it's much more subtle than that," explains Ali. "In some ways, overt nuisance – loud music, extreme violence – is easier to deal with: people won't tolerate it and criminal law steps in."

In 1995, Makishero moved into a 23-unit scheme in Surrey for people with mental illnesses. She was given an assured tenancy. In hindsight, says Ali, housing her in that scheme was a bad decision – she later refused to cooperate with staff and wouldn't accept support offered by social services or other agencies.

Makishero began a campaign of accusations against tenants and staff, often alleging racist and physical abuse. Her first victim was her next-door neighbour, John Partridge*, who had moved to the scheme to cope with his own mental illness and rebuild relations with his teenage son.

Makishero made unfounded accusations against him – including that he had threatened her with a knife – and wrote to other tenants in the scheme alleging that Partridge was a paedophile. He was arrested numerous times but never charged.

Eventually, as his illness and her accusations worsened, he snapped and did racially insult her: within days, he was moved and, because there were no similar units available, placed in a studio flat. This meant his son could no longer stay at weekends.

"You can never ignore racism," says Elaine McGuinness, acting head of care and support at Croydon Churches, "but he made a racist remark against her out of pure frustration. She wanted to get him evicted and she knew all the right buttons to press."

Physical attack
Croydon Churches began legal proceedings against Makishero in April 2003, after she physically attacked Anne Matthews*, the woman who had moved into Partridge's old flat. They found Makishero had extensive knowledge of the legal system.

"It was a game to her," says McGuinnes. "She had weeks to read up and I've seen her run rings around barristers."

Sometimes, Makishero even went to police stations outside her local area, to make claims against staff and tenants – because, Ali says, "the local police knew she made allegations and generally didn't pursue them".

In May 2003, Croydon Churches was granted an antisocial behaviour injunction with power of arrest. It ordered Makishero to stop harassing tenants and staff. By now, the RSL had already spent about £18,000.

The injunction was breached almost immediately, but Croydon Churches had to wait six months for a possession hearing.

With the court date set for 1 December, Makishero launched appeal after appeal. She frequently failed to turn up, though, claiming sickness, so another date would have to be set – at further cost to Croydon Churches, which has attended 20 hearings about the case in the past year.

Makishero received legal aid and engaged two solicitors during the case but frequently represented herself and acted without legal advice, further delaying the process.

Simon Bagg, a solicitor at Lewis Silkin who handled the case for Croydon Churches, explains: "By the time the proceedings began expert medical evidence stated that Makishero was not under a mental disability, so it was not necessary for anyone to be appointed to represent her interests."

One day in September 2003, Makishero turned up unannounced at the High Court and told Lord Justice Henriques that her landlord had been granted a possession order and that she would be made homeless the next day.

It’s almost like the perpetrator’s rights outweigh those of the people she was harassing 

Ozay Ali, Croydon Churches

The judge granted a stay of execution for the non-existent order – which Croydon Churches had to get overruled so the real possession hearing could proceed.

"It was the fact that they didn't check that staggers me," says Ali. "A lawyer turning up like that would be kicked out. We had to engage a barrister and a solicitor to get the meaningless order set aside. It cost us £2000; it cost her only a rail ticket."

Bagg says: "A major difficulty with this case was the fact that throughout most of the proceedings Makishero had the benefit of public funding, but chose to represent herself. The judges therefore gave her the benefit of the doubt, which led to increased costs."

Ali adds: "It's almost like Makishero's rights outweigh the rights of the people she was harassing," says Ali. "Judges always ensured they treated her fairly, but they forgot about the victims."

Having amassed more than 1000 pages of evidence against Makishero, Croydon Churches won possession of her flat last December, but had to wait another six months to enforce it.

Finally, on 30 April, at a High Court hearing that Makishero failed to attend, Lords Justice Chadwick and Carnwath refused her leave to go to the Court of Appeal to have the eviction set aside. It was the end of the road – or so Croydon Churches thought. Makishero applied for a stay of the possession order three more times, in one case returning to the local court. On 17 May, Lord Justice Davis again refused her appeal.

"The eviction was farcical," says Ali. "She was in the High Court trying to get the whole thing set aside; meanwhile we've got the bailiff, two locksmiths and the other tenants sat waiting. If we'd allowed the bailiff to leave, we'd have had to get another date."

In a frustrating twist, Makishero had actually moved out of the Croydon Churches flat in January. The association has received no rent since and a much-needed flat has stood empty.

Ali believes the court system let Croydon Churches and its tenants down – and that other agencies could have stepped in. He says the association has a good strategic relationship with the local council, but that high-level intentions do not always translate into frontline action. "[Makishero] is as aggressive to social services as she is to us. But I don't believe they pushed hard enough to get involved.

"It's easier for them not to get involved – it's the same for the police. Social landlords need to be part of the solution but we can't be the whole solution on our own."

Sutton council did work with Croydon Churches on the case. But a spokesperson says: "Makishero was a secure tenant of Croydon Churches and the council's view was that she should be accorded the same rights as anyone else."

Problems elsewhere
Many housing associations have had similar, if not so serious, problems getting the law enforced. Angus Macdonald is head of housing at Medina Housing Association on the Isle of Wight. In the past three years, it has launched 40 cases and 18 people have left their homes as a result.

But Macdonald says: "It's a bit like a postcode lottery – it depends whether the judge is buying into government policy. We know what courts not to go to now.

"There are fantastic judges who are sympathetic to the victims provided the evidence is good enough. But I've had judges confirm that we've proven serious antisocial behaviour, but refused to give us an order."

Ali wants the Home Office to examine the Makishero case to see if it could have been handled better. "If our approach was wrong, I'd like to know how. Perhaps we didn't address the nuisance early enough."

The Home Office is aware of the problems. In March, it set up a national team of crown prosecutors who specialise in antisocial behaviour cases and the antisocial behaviour unit's action plan, launched last October, included sentencing guidelines for magistrates dealing with nuisance cases.

A Home Office spokesman said: "This will make sure the voices of victims and witnesses are heard throughout the court system. The experts will also improve the Crown Prosecution Service's performance in tackling antisocial behaviour and using all enforcement powers available to them."

The victims in Croydon Churches' case are trying to get their lives back together, now Makishero has moved on. But the case does raise the question of whether eviction – simply moving the problem – is really the answer. On Tuesday, the Home Office announced compulsory rehabiliation for tenants evicted because of antisocial behaviour, to try to stop the problem being passed to other landlords.