Response to the eviction for anti-social behaviour consultation

I have been looking at your consultation on mandatory power of possession for ant-social behaviour.

As someone who has been campaigning against crime and anti-social behaviour for over a decade I will submit all my response in answer to Question 6:

6. Are there other issues related the introduction of a mandatory power for possession for anti-social behaviour that we should consider?

Your proposals give me very real concern and I am troubled that your intentions which are clearly reactionary to the riots we have recently seen, guise what anti-social behaviour is, in reality for communities blighted by it, that you will contribute to problems in other areas and take the process of what needs to be done backwards.

You also appear to believe that anti-social behaviour is from and in areas run by landlords and miss the divide of how it is dealt with by those who live in the remit of housing associations and 'normal' residents.

You need to be extremely cautious about moving problems on, the problems any anti-social individual (s) may bring to their new community and how you deal with individuals should they once evicted start or maintain their anti-social behaviour in the new area they are forced to reside in.

There also needs to be real consideration given between the eviction being served and the evicted leaving the premises and what protection is available to the community that has been so badly effected that they have had to be removed from it.

If someone is being anti-social and has been evicted for being anti-social there appears to be no reason for them to stop being anti-social in that community, until they leave.

Consideration also has to be given to associates of the evicted, who may have not done sufficient activities to warrant a similar eviction but who will remain in the area and if reprisals could bring consequence to the community involved and also been seen as an opportunity to be re housed.

Although there is a very clear need to provide what can be best described as rest-bite from anti-social residents in neighbourhoods and a reduction in time scales will obviously bring that sooner, all outcomes from the the eviction being served to the evicted arriving in their new community need to be thoroughly investigated and appropriate safeguards for the community moved to have to be ensured.

A real handover to all organisations Police, council etc must be given. If anti-social behaviour is repeated then the eviction process must be fast tracked with prosecution and custodial sentences given for repeat offenders.


As mentioned in my opening comments the reason for your proposals are based on reactionary measures to the recent riots.

There are clearly issues for them to have taken place which have come about through the failure to implement all of the key objectives within Community Safety Strategies in full.

All reasons why these proposals are necessary have to be investigated, as does what anti-social behaviour is and why, with the tools that are in place, have some offenders been dealt with when they have been given an ASBO but others haven't been.

You need to look at why for example when loud music is being played can the response to turn it down, be ignored, why alcohol being confiscated from under age drinkers is merely replaced and why parenting orders are rarely given etc before any eviction is served and if those within authority are actually doing what they are responsible for.