More InfoScotland sites: healthier / natural / one / safer / smarter

Tayside Closure

Area

Angus Local Authority/Tayside Police

Intelligence - what was the nature of the antisocial behaviour?

The premises in respect of this matter was a flatted dwelling house situated within a three storey block of six.  A total of 75 incidents had been reported to the Police and Housing Department detailing an array of antisocial behaviour within the premises including:  

  • Excessive loud music/noisy parties
  • Persons making thumping noises on the floor/slamming of doors
  • Faeces, vomit, cigarette butts and litter left on the common stairwell
  • Stones, bottles and cans being thrown from window of the premises
  • Reckless discharge of an air pistol from a window into the street
  • Damage to property belonging to nearby residents and property stolen from outside, belonging to them
  • Threatening and abusive language to neighbours
  • Youths congregating in the area and kicking at the secure entry door
  • Youths known to truant within said address
Significant damage had been caused to the exterior of the property and throughout the tenancy.  Angus Council had spent in excess of £2000.00 to carry out repairs and to implement measures to discourage persons from loitering in the area.

The interior of the premises was also known to have suffered extensive damage.

Involvement - which partners were involved?

Police, Community Safety Team, Housing Department, Community Throughcare Treatment Worker, Tenancy Support Officer, Social Work Department

Intervention(s) - which intervention(s) were used and why?

Closure and interim ASBO.  

Evidence supported by witnesses showed that the subject was directly responsible for a significant amount of antisocial behaviour at the premises.  It was also recognised that other incidents were attributed to visitors to the premises. It was recognised by those who had contact with the subject that the situation had spiralled out of his control.  It was also known that a number of the perpetrator’s friends or associates had copies of the keys to the flat and were frequenting the premises with or without the subject’s consent/knowledge.

A number of individuals (the complainants in this regard) had suffered relevant harm in respect of the anti-social behaviour at and around the premises.

Action was needed to resolve this situation and give relief to those affected and the community in general as previous warnings and efforts by support workers had not worked or made any difference to the situation.

Implementation - how were the intervention methods realised in practice?

Given the nature of the complaints received by the Housing Department, a Council Community Throughcare Team worker and Council Tenancy Support Officer were allocated to make contact with the subject three times per week.  This was in addition to contact he had been receiving from his Social Worker.

The subject had received two verbal warnings from Council Housing Visitors and one formal written warning letter. A number of additional warnings had been given by the Housing Inspector.

Follow up visits had been made by the Local Housing Visitor and the Anti-Social Behaviour Investigation Officer and further warnings regarding his behaviour had been given to no effect.

Community Mediation was offered to the subject as a way forward on 5th January 2005 but this was refused.  Police attended at the premises on 52 occasions and had warned the subject (and others where relevant) regarding their anti social behaviour.  Two persons had been apprehended from the premises and music equipment had been seized on a separate occasion as a result of a refusal by the subject to heed warnings in respect of complaints of unreasonable and excessive noise nuisance.

Despite significant efforts by support workers in the form of a Community Throughcare Team worker and Council Tenancy Support Officer, and a Social Worker, the subject had refused to actively engage with them and clearly did not heed the advice provided.  To that end, all efforts to curb his behaviour had proved ineffective. Attempts to encourage the subject to rescind his tenancy were also in vain.

Impact - what were the outcomes for the perpetrator, the victims and the wider community?

Once the closure order was granted the perpetrator sought and was provided alternative accommodation by the Local Authority.  The individual was given more appropriate/largely supported accommodation, and as a result he voluntarily gave up his original tenancy.

The victims/complainants (many of whom had health/medical issues that were being exacerbated by the ASB) now have some long sought after relief from this ASB and are very satisfied with the outcome.

Are there any practices/experiences you have gained during this Intervention that would influence the handling of future Interventions?

The following points are to be considered for the future:

  • The use of the Community Safety Team solicitor to present future cases.  This would assist in dealing with the many legal issues surrounding Human Rights legislation, which may be raised if faced with a legal representative on behalf of the subject.

  • Consideration of the Early Intervention meetings (Local Police/Housing Officers) currently carried out in Arbroath being rolled out throughout the Division. This would highlight to police problems in the early stages and would afford the opportunity to plan and co-ordinate appropriate action to prevent escalation. Training would be required for CLO’s carrying out this process to ensure the information discussed conforms to Data Protection principles.

  • The involvement of the Community Intelligent Analyst in identifying hot spot areas.

Contact

Sgt. Kenny Hart
Tayside Police/Angus Community Safety Team
www.tayside.police.uk
www.angus.gov.uk

More information about this type of intervention

Would you like to see your work featured here?

Send us details about your success stories via our online form and we'll look at adding your case study to the website.