Section: Antisocial Behaviour

New Regulations

The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (Commencement No. 3) (Wales) Order 2004 SI 3238 (W.281) (C.144)

This Order brought into force the provisions of Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 in relation to hedges situated in Wales.

Part 8 of the Act gives local authorities the power to deal with complaints about high hedges that are having an adverse effect on a neighbour's enjoyment of his or her property. It also gives the National Assembly for Wales the power to make regulations in relation to hedges in Wales.
Act of Sederunt (Summary Applications, Statutory Applications and Appeals etc. Rules) Amendment (Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004) 2004 Scottish SI 455

This Act of Sederunt further amends the Act of Sederunt (Summary Applications, Statutory Applications and Appeals etc. Rules) 1999 to make provision for miscellaneous procedure under the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004.

Crackdown on Nuisance Vehicles

A tough new approach will see the strengthening of a raft of measures, aimed at reversing a growing trend of cars being illegally abandoned, by removing untaxed and unregistered vehicles from streets and public spaces.

Local authorities will be given greater powers to fine offenders, and the general public are being urged to dispose of vehicles responsibly.

Over 300,000 vehicles are abandoned nation-wide every year, acting as a magnet for crime, anti-social behaviour, and arson. A further one million are uninsured and untaxed for more than three months. The problem has increased significantly in the last five years and is projected to carry on rising. The key objectives of the new strategy are to:

Give local authorities more powers to immediately seize and destroy vehicles that are causing a nuisance.
Support local authorities to make wider use of the powers already available to them.
Make the polluter pay with increased fees and charges.

Delayed Enforcement Action

The Ombudsman issued a report on the investigation of a complaint, about neighbour nuisance, against Canterbury City Council.

Mr. and Mrs. N complained that Canterbury City Council failed to take effective or timely enforcement action to deal with the activities of their neighbour, referred to in the report as Mr. Nolan [not his real name]. They complained, in June 2001, that Mr. Nolan was using his home for the sale, storage, and repair of motor vehicles, that the site was an eyesore, and about noise nuisance and fumes.

Mr. Nolan's activities had been a long-running problem by the time of the Ombudsman's involvement, and the Council, in response to complaints from neighbours, had repeatedly tried to clear the site of car parts, scrap, tires, and rubbish. A Notice to clear the land was obstructed by Mr. Nolan's appeals.

The Council also took action against the other nuisance issues raised. From September 2003 direct action was taken to enforce existing Enforcement Notices, but were, in part, frustrated by legal proceedings. Action under antisocial behaviour legislation was not pursued. A degree of compliance, however, had been achieved following a Court Order obtained in July 2004.

The Ombudsman's report commends the Council's considerable efforts to deal with this difficult case, but finds maladministration in that the Council delayed in identifying and pursuing a coordinated strategy. As a result, progress towards achieving Mr. Nolan's compliance with the Orders took longer than might otherwise have been expected.

In the report the Ombudsman recommends that the Council pay Mr. and Mrs. N compensation of £900, continues to monitor Mr. Nolan's activities, and reviews the case in three months time. The Council said it would accept the ruling and pay the compensation, but that the decision was harsh in light of the Council's efforts as regards this matter, the Council's track record, and planning enforcement as a difficult legislative area.

Report No. 03/A/07607

In Brief

Westminster Council launched its biggest push so far to reduce begging. Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs), used against people caught begging more than five times, will direct those with drug addiction problems to seek treatment within the Borough. Research suggests a significant link between begging and drug dependency. Opponents of the use of ASBOs in this context warned that criminalising begging would not solve the problem, but rather encourage people desperate to feed an addiction to turn to acquisitive crime.
A London day centre for young homeless people claimed that antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) cut vulnerable people off from its services. As previously warned by homelessness charities, ASBOs banning people from key support areas are believed to exacerbate the problem of antisocial behaviour, as vulnerable people's access to accommodation and specialised help is thwarted.

The London boroughs providing the majority of the Capital's drug treatment, and prostitution and homelessness support centres - namely Camden, Islington and Westminster - were also found to be the regular no-go areas for people under ASBOs.
Barking and Dagenham Council was granted an Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO) forcing a homeowner to keep the inside and outside of his home clean for two years. The Council applied for the ASBO following the involvement of social services, three professional cleaning exercises, a year's conditional discharge for breaching environmental legislation, and complaints from neighbours of bad smells and flies.
Greenwich LBC approved the provision of police powers under the 2003 Antisocial Behaviour Act to disperse groups of people causing trouble to the local community in the Borough's Horn Park area. For a six-month period, the area will be defined as a dispersal zone. The police will also have powers to take people under the age of 16-years home after 9pm. If required, there is an option to renew the scheme.
A County Court backed a housing association's use of an Injunction-of-Eviction, which was obtained without the evicted tenants being at the hearing. Moat Housing Group successfully sought two Injunctions-of-Eviction against two separate families with a combined total of ten children, due to severe antisocial behaviour. Only one of the families sought to legally challenge what amounted to an eviction without warning.
An 11-year old boy became the subject of a highly restrictive Antisocial Behaviour Order when his parents' landlord, the Shipley Community Housing Trust, secured an Order effectively banning him from leaving the road where he lives. The Order requires him to stay indoors from 7pm to 8am every night and to only leave the area if a nominated adult accompanies him.

The Order will be in effect for two years. It was requested after the boy accumulated numerous convictions of criminal and antisocial acts, including arson, theft, and racial abuse.
The National Federation of Residential Landlords contributed £50,000 toward the cost of a Judicial Review concerned with Northern Ireland legislation soon to be extended to the rest of the UK. Landlords fear that disputed measures will make them legally liable for any antisocial behaviour perpetrated by tenants or tenants' visitors, and may compromise a landlord's future right to let property.

Under the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, landlords are responsible for tenants' or those visiting tenants' antisocial behaviour anywhere in the neighbourhood of the rented property concerned.
A booklet from the Housing Corporation looks at the role of housing associations in tackling anti-social behaviour: Protecting Our Communities: How Housing Associations are Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour: Housing Corporation.

Section: Antisocial Behaviour

New Regulations

Crackdown on Nuisance Vehicles

Delayed Enforcement Action

In Brief

Housing Monthly Diary

Issue: January 2005 Reporting on Oct.-Dec. 2004

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods