During the King’s Speech on 17 July 2024, we learned of numerous impending legislative changes for the housing sector. Perhaps most relevant to SHAC’s new antisocial behaviour (ASB) campaign is the Hillsborough Law. This law will place a duty of candour on public servants and authorities. It is expressly designed to ‘address the unacceptable defensive culture prevalent across too much of the public sector’. The legislation also asserts itself as a ‘catalyst for a changed culture in the public sector.’ This culture is one that ASB victims in social housing know all too well.
Our ASB Survey
In January 2024, SHAC conducted a survey to explore the nature, severity, and experience of ASB amongst social tenants and residents. SHAC received 137 valid responses across 45 landlords. Many of our respondents reported longstanding, serious ASB with resultant long-term impacts on their mental and/or physical health. Our key findings are:
- The top three types of ASB suffered were noise nuisance, intimidating behaviour and drug use;
- Around 46% suffered ASB for one to five years, and 42% for over five years;
- Around 93% of respondents suffered long-term mental and physical health problems as a result of the ASB;
- Over 40% had been blamed by their landlord for the ASB, and over 30% reported retaliatory action against them by their landlord; and
- Only 20% expressed satisfaction with their landlord’s handling of ASB.
The survey originated in SHAC’s Disability Visibility campaign group following a high level of reports that disabled members were also victims of ASB. Disabled members, and particularly those who are neurodivergent, also found themselves unjustly tagged with the ASB label by their landlords after reporting their disability. Our survey supported these findings:
- Around three-quarters of respondents were disabled;
- Two-thirds had advised their landlord of a disability when reporting the ASB; and
- Only 51% were aware of their landlord conducting a risk assessment for these respondents.
These findings are harrowing and unfortunately confirm much of what past research has already captured about ASB. However, our report goes beyond just exploration of the impact on victims of ASB, and examines the behaviour of social landlords, namely their response to ASB and their treatment of those who report it. We uncover a shocking pattern of social landlords being antisocial towards ASB victims. Zoe* suffered such abuse and says:
“Ongoing ASB for four years. [Landlord] are useless and say they can’t do very much as some of the offenders are children. The adult members of the family refuse to look after the children properly and blame everyone else for their behaviour. It is very intimidating living here and sharing the drive, and also with disabilities in our household.
“I cannot cope with another summer of all of this. [Landlord] tell us to record it all so we bought an outdoor camera to show evidence, but then they told us that it is inadmissible and doesn’t count when I try to show them the evidence! We are completely trapped here as no one wants to swap and live next to them.”
With a legal system that provides little recourse for ASB victims, and no enforcements to ensure proper landlord ASB management, tenants and residents are victimised by perpetrators and re-victimised by landlords. The wide-ranging impact of this combined ASB on victims’ lives is devastating. Yet, tenants and residents are often powerless, not even having the legal right to withhold rent in such situations. In a country that has boasted of its civility, the notion of paying one’s abuser to reside in an abusive environment is both ironic and insidious. Yet, our government appears to have no problem with this.
SHAC’s ASB report explains how social landlords, most of which are non-profit housing associations, have abandoned their philanthropic roots. Instead, they engage in detriments and harms during ASB which belie their supposed charitable status.
The absence of a firm regulatory structure to which they are directly answerable means victims are left to suffer in silence – sometimes to the point of death. This is particularly cruel given the high levels of vulnerability amongst social tenants and residents, with a majority reporting that they have a disability and/or chronic illness.
Mirror, Mirror on the Wall…
Six landlords shared the top five slots for most ineffective handling of ASB
There were 45 landlords named by our survey respondents; Clarion Housing was the worst of them all. However, for various reasons explained in our report, we dedicate an entire section to Southern Housing – the third most mentioned landlord by respondents. Disturbingly, as seen in one of our case studies, Southern is a shamefully perfect example of the antisocial landlord. This landlord is the epitome of what happens when social landlords are left to become a law unto themselves, thus strengthening our argument that while the Hillsborough Law is a great start, it is not enough.
Beyond the Hillsborough Law
We welcome the Hillsborough Law’s recognition of toxicity within the public sector, which includes social housing. While this is a positive beginning, it must not be seen as the end of necessary legislative change. When it comes to ASB, at SHAC we insist that social landlords be required by law to respond to ASB in accordance with current legislation and that a regulatory body proactively enforces this so that redress, when necessary, is not solely reliant on victims to seek.
It is simply not enough for the government to give ASB powers to landlords but not require that they are used. In our report, The Antisocial Social Landlord, we make the strong case as to why ASB in social housing will never be managed effectively until the government recognises this.
SHAC will continue to campaign for better enforcement of, and improvements to, the duty on landlords to effectively address ASB and eliminate discrimination against disabled people. Keep up to date with SHAC’s ASB Campaign here.
25 July 2024
If you have a WordPress account, get notifications about new articles by subscribing below:
An amazing compiled ASLReport and how the H Ombudsman and Regulator reacted to it? John Guinness Homes.
Ethical complaints handling? More like ethical abuse and attacks by the not-so-social housing sector!
Do the not-so-social housing providers genuinely want to learn from complaints and improve services; or, learn from the complaints so they can process complaints with a view to silencing the complainant, while simultaneously looking good in the eyes of the Housing Ombudsman (HO) and courts (eg First-Tier Tribunals)? How many housing providers have gotten gold stars for attending and/or following HO courses, training, guides, etc?
The HO reported this month about whether the not-so-social housing providers’ complaints processes are ethical or not (ooh, maybe the HO has hit the nail on the head!). Yes, the not-so-social housing providers have much to gain from learning from complaints, including improving processes and saving money, and identifying ineffective and potentially toxic teams/persons who need to be performance management and/or let go. And critically letting their customers get on with their lives, living in safe homes, free from shoddy works.
The 2 videos of the recent horrendous Manchester airport police incident in July 2024 demonstrate 2 very different views of the same situation. This is why in the UK ‘innocent until proven guilty’ by an independent jury seeing all evidence from all parties is enshrined in UK law. And what’s implicit in our UK regulatory and government services!
Residents, tenants, and leaseholders (customers!) are being character assassinated and/or accused of being habitual complainers, without being able to provide their side of events. The alleged socially-orientated housing providers are behaving like Russia’s Putin Regime! Perhaps their eye-watering renumeration packages which are much greater than the HO and UK Prime Minster’s have gone to their heads? Power exemplified. Remember they’re supposed to be social……
Those determining that the not-so-social housing providers’ customers are guilty are boards/committees chosen by the not-so-social housing provider themselves! Just like the sharing of the first video of the Manchester airport incident, are they ethically sharing all parties evidence in an objective and independent manner? To an independent jury? No! Is this bullying?
Bullies tend to attack with a view to silencing those they see as a threat to their survival. Can’t blame them with their enviable private sector renumeration packages!
The HO has reported that half of complaints are in London. Have they analysed complainant demographics? Are they a single parent struggling for time; or, a young empty nest professional graduate couple who have the time and resources to learn and persevere seeing complaints through an overly complex multi stage and multi organisation complaints process which can take years from the start of the issue?
Do the not-so-social housing providers want to provide good services and learn from mistakes; or do they want to coast along and abuse and attack anyone that dares challenge their underperformance? Sadly, the number of complaints the HO gets are a tiny percentage of the harsh reality of atrociously poor levels of ‘service’.
Social? The leadership team renumeration packages are the envy of many private sector organisations! They’re £100Ks and some more like £1ms. With packages like that, you can see why they might want to silence people!
Some not-so-social housing providers have a Chief Executive Officer AND a Deputy Chief Executive Officer… not even private sector organisations have that much money………….
If only the not-so-social housing provider employees behaved as professionally as their private sector professional renumeration packages, they might not get anywhere near as much contact from abused tenants, residents, and leaseholders… now there’s a thought… Win-Win! Not what bullies aim to achieve, is it?
The Labour Party must address the toxic not-so-social housing sector with its Putin-style leaders with their obscene renumeration packages and toxic abusive customer service which it inherited from a pro-private sector Conservative Party…………………….
Exactly what we are experiencing from old age home operators Anchor Hanover Group – barbaric uncivilised operators that are conducting ruinous tyranny on old and black women – because Anchor Hanover Group are vexatious and without conscience or respect for the people or the law. YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT.