Research and analysis

Experiences of anti-social behaviour: Resident Panel report

Published 9 July 2025

Applies to England

Date: May 2025

1. Introduction and summary of findings

Background to the Social Housing Resident Panel

In November 2022 the previous government established the Social Housing Resident Panel, initially focusing on social housing quality reforms. In October 2024 this government relaunched the panel with a broader scope across all social housing policy.

The panel brings together up to 250 social housing residents from across England to share their views with the government and ministers as policy is developed and reforms implemented.

The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is committed to making sure social housing residents have their voices heard, with policy makers reflecting and acting on what they hear. Panel members take part in regular focus groups and online communities facilitated by Verian, as well as additional workshops and meetings organised by MHCLG.

Background to the online community

This report summarises the main findings of the engagement with panel members via the online community. An online community is an online forum that brings together a group of people to share and discuss their thoughts, feelings, and experiences on a particular subject via a series of activities.

The activities for this online community focussed on anti-social behaviour (ASB). Questions addressed panel members’ understandings of what ASB is, the role of landlords in dealing with ASB, lived experiences of ASB, knowledge of and experiences of reporting ASB, as well as ideas for improving how ASB is dealt with and preventing ASB. For further detail on the online community activities, please refer to Appendix 1.

The online community featured in this report was hosted on the online platform Recollective and was open for a week between Monday 3rd February and Sunday 9th February 2025.

The number of panel members that engaged with each activity varied. All panel members were invited to participate, and 76 accessed the community (individuals will be referred to as ‘panel members’ throughout this report).

Panel members were able to complete activities within the online community at a time that suited them and were supported by experienced moderators. The community required individuals to complete various activities designed to take 15 minutes in total. There was also the choice to contribute to an optional activity.

The number of panel members that engaged with each activity varied. Figures are based on the number of panel members who completed the activity in question. All percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. This rounding effect means that in some cases, the data provided will not add up to 100%. The data captures only those insights from panel members who participated in the online community and is not statistically representative of all social housing residents. For further information about the focus groups and the demographic breakdown of panel members, please refer to Appendix 2.

Please also note that the panel itself and the range of panel members who participated in the online community are not a representative sample of social housing residents. This is because the Social Housing Resident Panel is a voluntary panel where residents self-select into activities. 

Summary of findings

Panel members’ responses highlighted a range of perspectives on what counts as ASB, from nuisance-level disturbances to more serious criminal activities – reflecting that ASB is often complex. Panel members felt that context and circumstances were important in defining ASB. ASB was also seen to be tied to a lack of community cohesion.

Experiences of ASB were common among panel members, with 85% of panel members having experienced ASB at any time. ASB was experienced at different levels of intensity, from noise from children playing to neighbours threatening them and being abusive.

The impacts of ASB were highlighted by panel members and were exceptionally negative – ranging from loss of sleep, mental health issues, chronic health issues worsening, and even some accounts of suicidal thoughts due to the stress of the situation and the lack of satisfactory response from landlords and other organisations.

Landlords were overwhelmingly seen as the first port of call for ASB reports, but those who had reported ASB to landlords were often left disappointed with the outcome and/or the way it was dealt with.

75% of those who had experienced ASB had made a formal report about it. Only 27% of panel members said the outcome of their report was satisfactory. 

Experiences of reporting were largely negative and highlighted key issues that need to be addressed. Some positive stories also shed light on what good practice looks like. 1 in 4 (25%) panel members said they had not heard of the ASB case review when asked about it. Those that had used the ASB case review reported mixed experiences and suggest that the process had speeded up action being taken, but not necessarily led to a conclusion that was fully satisfactory.

Recommendations to improve how ASB is dealt with largely focussed on landlords’ accountability and visibility; communication and respect; support; and the process for dealing with ASB.

Recommendations for preventing ASB included:

• encouraging social connections and building community
• landlords and other organisations being more visible in the community
• tenancy screening checks
• consistently applying sanctions for perpetrators
• maintaining properties and communal areas
• designing properties and communal spaces to consider ASB
• tackling root causes of ASB through effective multi-agency working

2. Views on defining ASB

Overview

Overall, panel members’ responses highlighted a range of perspectives on what counts as ASB, from nuisance-level disturbances to more serious criminal activities – reflecting that ASB is often complex. Panel members felt that context and circumstances were important in defining ASB.

What makes a good neighbour

Panel members were invited to share views on what makes a good neighbour. These views can be largely split into pro-active and passive elements of being a good neighbour.

Proactive elements of being a good neighbour

Some panel members thought being a good neighbour meant actively and willingly looking to help others. These members described a good neighbour as being someone who was friendly, caring and polite and went out of their way to be involved in community life and nurture neighbour relationships. Some felt these acts of neighbourliness contributed to a community spirit and community cohesion.

“To me, a good neighbour is someone who understands that living together in a street etc is a relationship of sorts and needs to be nurtured. It requires understanding and tolerance but most of all respect. We have a spirited community in our street and have had numerous well attended street parties. These parties have helped strangers become neighbours and neighbours become friends.”
Male, 55 – 64, South East

“A good neighbour is someone who is pleasant, polite and caring. They are willing to help out others. […] I had a neighbour who would regularly offer to and cut peoples grass who lived on our street. He would take the bins down every week to the end of the street and bring them back after council collections. He would also bring us bags of vegetables he had grown in his garden. He always chatted to us while he was doing his garden.”
Female, 35 – 44, North East

Passive elements of being a good neighbour

This included generally being more considerate of neighbours and thinking about the impact of actions on others. For some, being a good neighbour was seen as the absence of ASB which included those who did not play loud music, did not leave rubbish out and kept communal areas clean. Good neighbours in this more passive context were seen as people who would respect people’s privacy and would not be intrusive but would be available to help in an emergency.  

“Respecting people’s privacy but offering help when needed. Joining in community events at your own discretion, when suited to you. Not being intrusive [and] ensuring that you do not impose your lifestyle on others, e.g. noise.”
Female, 35 – 44, North East

“Good neighbours avoid making unnecessary noise and disturbance. Good neighbours park their cars properly, not too close to yours and leaving space for others.”
Male, 45 - 54, South East

Figure 2.1 is a graphic summarising these different proactive and passive elements of being a good neighbour. Examples of proactive elements were: being friendly and showing care to others, putting neighbours’ bins out while they were away, having a spare key, looking after pets, looking after children, being a ‘second pair of eyes’ and looking out for neighbours, checking on neighbours if you hadn’t seen them in a while and participating in community life. Passive elements of being a good neighbour were: being considerate of others, not playing loud music, not causing noise late at night, not leaving rubbish out and keeping communal areas clean, respecting neighbours’ privacy and not being intrusive and feeling that they would offer help in an emergency

Figure 2.1: Pro-active and passive elements of being a good neighbour

What counts as ASB

Panel members shared their views on what counts as ASB. Individuals often explained that different people have different thresholds for what is acceptable, and that context is important. Building-related factors, such as inadequate soundproofing in buildings, or unsafe bin storage facilities, could lead to noise complaints or littering. Additionally, individuals’ different needs and lifestyles could cause ‘normal’ disturbances to be experienced as ASB. There was also a strong narrative that ASB was tied to a lack of community cohesion.

“ASB is a societal issue which is growing year on year. It’s in the streets, online, within schools, and hospitals. It’s not just in housing. Since the pandemic many local area housing hubs closed down preventing local reporting. More community cohesion [is] needed.”
Female, 55 - 64, West Midlands

“Whether you consider behaviour as anti-social or not may depend on your own lifestyle - e.g. elderly neighbours may not want to hear noisy children. People [who] work nights and sleep in the day may be disturbed by appliances or barking dogs. People who work shifts may have to do their housework at night.”
Female, 45 - 54, Yorkshire and the Humber

“To be honest, I think one of the hardest challenges is defining what anti-social behaviour is. One person’s ASB is another’s summer party.”
Male, 55 – 64, North West

Despite this context, 100% of panel members thought that noisy and/or abusive behaviour counted as ASB. 98% of respondents felt that hate incidents motivated by someone’s age, disability, faith, sexual orientation or race; harassment, including verbal and physical abuse and threats; selling illegal drugs; and intimidation were ASB.

However, some respondents felt behaviours such as selling drugs or hate incidents were also criminal in nature rather than ASB and that the term ‘anti-social behaviour’ may not adequately capture the severity of these issues.

The least commonly selected options for what counted as ASB were excessively barking dogs (64%), excessive noise from domestic appliances (27%) and children playing (11%).

Figure 2.2 is a chart showing, in full, the percentage of panel members who thought that different behaviours are (yes) or are not (no) ASB. All respondents thought that noisy and/or abusive behaviour counted as ASB (100% Yes). Hate incidents, motivated by someone’s age, disability, faith, sexual orientation or race (98% yes, 2% no). Harassment, including verbal and physical abuse and threats (98% yes, 2% no). Selling illegal drugs (98% yes, 2% no).  Intimidation (98% yes, 2% no). Acts of violence (96% yes, 4% no). Vandalism (95% yes, 5% no). Illegal drug use (89% yes, 11% no). Public drunkenness (84% yes, 16% no). Fly tipping (82% yes, 18% no). Activities related to prostitution (79% yes, 21% no). Littering (77% yes, 23% no). Graffiti (75% yes, 25% no). Neighbour disputes which have been escalated (70% yes, 30% no). Excessively barking dogs (64% yes, 36% no). Excessive noise from domestic appliances (e.g. washing machines, vacuum cleaners) (27% yes, 73% no). Noise from children playing (11% yes, 89% no).

Figure 2.2: Views on what counts as ASB

Q. What is anti-social behaviour? Which of the following do you consider to be anti-social behaviour? Let us know by dragging each of the cards below into one of the groups at the bottom of this page. Base: All panel members who answered Activity 2 task 2 (56)

3. Lived experiences of ASB

Experiences of ASB

Most panel members reported that they had experienced ASB in or around their home (85%).

Figure 3.1 is a chart showing the percentage of panel members who said they had experienced ASB and those who hadn’t. 85% of respondents answered ‘Yes - experienced ASB’ and 15% answered ‘No - not experienced ASB’.

Figure 3.1: Whether panel members had experienced ASB

Q. Have you personally experienced what you consider to be anti-social behaviour in or around your home? Base: All respondents who completed Activity 1 Task 1 (52)

Of those who had experienced ASB, almost half had experienced it within the past 12 months, while just over a third (36%) had experienced it within the past 5 years.

Of those who had reported experiencing ASB within the past year, around 4 in 10 respondents (43%) said they experience it almost always (at least once a day) or very often (at least once per week). Around a quarter (24%) reported they experience it often (once every one to three months).

Types of experiences

The most common form of ASB that respondents had experienced was noisy/abusive behaviour (60%), followed by harassment (43%), then illegal drug use (36%), and illegal drug selling (34%).

No respondents had experienced activities related to prostitution and few had experienced graffiti (5%) or hate incidents (7%).

Figure 3.2 is a chart showing different types of ASB that panel members had experienced. These are shown in order of prevalence. 60% of respondents said they had experienced noisy or abusive behaviour. After this, harassment (43%), illegal drug use (36%), intimidation (36%), illegal drug selling (34%), other (23%), violence or threats of violence (21%), fly tipping (21%), littering (21%), public drunkenness (18%), vandalism (16%), barking dogs (9%), hate incidents (7%) and graffiti (5%) were also experienced.

Figure 3.2: Experience of different types of ASB

Q. What anti-social behaviour did you experience? (Please select all that apply). Base: All panel members who answered ‘Yes – experienced ASB’ to ‘Have you personally experienced what you consider to be anti-social behaviour in or around your home?’ and completed activity 1 Task 4 (46)

Impacts of ASB

Panel members were invited to share how their experiences of ASB made them feel. The descriptions were overwhelmingly negative and sometimes described incredibly distressing experiences. The most common words used were ‘depressed’, ‘scared’, ‘frustrated’ and ‘angry’. Other descriptions included feeling not listened to, violated and belittled. This was related to the behaviour of the ASB perpetrator but also the fact that some felt let down by landlords, police and other organisations who some felt did not support them.

“[I felt] scared, belittled, depressed and that no one would ever believe us.”
Female, 65+, East of England

Some felt helpless because they had experienced ASB for a long time and it had not improved, despite attempts to try to get it resolved. Reporting and contacting agencies were seen as long and arduous processes, often without any satisfactory outcome.

“Frustrated because it takes so long to even start sorting it out and so much is asked of the abused tenant whilst they get no relief from it all.”
Female, 55 - 64, Yorkshire and the Humber

Panel members also described feeling scared and anxious to leave their property out of fear. Some felt anxious after complaining or reporting ASB in case they would be threatened by the perpetrators. A couple of panel members also commented on how they felt ASB impacted the wider community. Some felt ‘embarrassed’ to be part of their neighbourhood, and one felt ‘worried’ for neighbours with young families.

Others felt that they would be seen as the ‘problem’ or wrongdoer for making a report, either by their landlord, the police or the neighbours displaying acts of antisocial behaviour, which further exacerbated the distress they experienced.  For example, one panel member discussed reporting their neighbour several times for harassment and for constantly smoking marijuana. She said the landlord and police were not interested in dealing with this and made her feel she was the problem for reporting it. Another panel member felt he had the capacity to deal with his ASB situation himself (noisy and/or abusive behaviour and cases of harassment), but he felt reluctant to do so in case this meant he was seen as the wrongdoer by his neighbours.

“I [was made to] feel like I am the problem, not them - when I just want to live a normal life. The pressure of putting up with ASB does affect you.”
Female, 55 – 64, South East

Panel members also described the impact that living with ASB had on their physical health. Sleep was often impacted by ASB either due to the noise or due to feeling unsafe or stressed, with respondents reporting feeling exhausted and irritable. Other panel members explained that their chronic health conditions had worsened or flared up due to the stress they have experienced because of ASB, causing further pain and isolation.

“Stressed, nervous. The stress also causes flare ups of my fibromyalgia which in turn leads to further pain and collapse.”
Female, 65+, South East

4. Views on who to go to about ASB

Who to go to about ASB

In order to explore panel members’ views on who to go to in order to try to deal with ASB, specifically when it happened in or around someone’s home, panel members responded to a scenario where a fictional resident named Anita was experiencing the following issue:

Anita lives in a large house which is split into multiple flats, maintained by her local authority. The house next door is also split into flats and maintained by the local authority. Anita lives on the ground floor, and a neighbour in the adjoining ground floor flat is playing loud, offensive music most mornings at 8am. They are also doing this after midnight and often play the music using large speakers in their back garden. The same neighbour is also repeatedly throwing litter over the fence into Anita’s garden.

Anita has attempted to resolve this issue with her neighbour directly, but this has been unsuccessful. She needs to report the issue. 

Who do you think Anita should report this issue to first? (Please select one option only)

Please note that throughout the online community, ‘in or around someone’s home’ was defined as ASB which affects someone while they are in their home, or within a 2-minute walk of their home.

Panel members overwhelmingly felt that Anita should go to her landlord first, with 96% of respondents selecting this option (2% of respondents selected ‘Police’ and 2% selected ‘Other’, specifying the ‘Housing ASB Team’.

Figure 4.1 is a chart showing a summary of this. 96% of panel members felt that Anita should go to her landlord (Local Authority or Housing Association), 2% thought she should go to the police, and 2% selected ‘other’.

Figure 4.1: Panel members’ views on who Anita should report her ASB issue to first

 

Q. Who do you think Anita should report this issue to first? Base: All panel members who answered Activity 2 task 5 (57)

Panel members outlined two key reasons for why they felt Anita should go to the landlord first:

1. The fact that Anita’s flat and the ASB perpetrator’s flat are both maintained by the same local authority so it makes sense to go to the landlord.

2. Some felt that other agencies would be unlikely to act if Anita hadn’t been to her landlord first in any case, and that the landlord should take the lead on resolution, even if a multi-agency approach was required.

In the next part of the scenario activity, Anita had raised a formal report, but she felt that it hadn’t been handled effectively. Panel members were asked to give their views on who Anita should go to next by placing each option into a ‘would suggest she contacts’, ‘would not suggest she contacts’ or ‘don’t know’ category.

100% of respondents felt that Anita should contact her landlord and 91% of respondents felt that she should request an ASB case review. Communities and community-lead organisations were the least likely to be selected as organisations to go to, with 39% of respondents saying that Anita should not engage with neighbours or the community. 32% of respondents said that she should not engage with community groups.

Figure 4.2 is a chart showing the full range of responses to the question of who panel members would recommend Anita should or should not contact next. The options were: their landlord (HA or Local Authority (100% would suggest she contacts), request an ASB case review with local council (91% would suggest she contacts, 2% would not suggest she contacts, 7% unsure), an MP or local councillor (70% would suggest she contacts, 16% would not suggest she contacts, 14% unsure), a housing charity that support tenants (70% would suggest she contacts, 13% would not suggest she contacts, 18% unsure), resident association / Tenants panel (70% would suggest she contacts, 14% would not suggest she contacts, 16% unsure), Citizens Advice Bureau (66% would suggest she contacts, 20% would not suggest she contacts, 14% unsure), Housing Ombudsman Service (63% would suggest she contacts, 29% would not suggest she contacts, 9% unsure), police (59% would suggest she contacts, 21% would not suggest she contacts, 20% unsure), friends/family (55% would suggest she contacts, 29% would not suggest she contacts, 16% unsure), community group (e.g. neighbourhood watch) (45% would suggest she contacts, 32% would not suggest she contacts, 23% unsure), neighbours/community (41% would suggest she contacts, 39% would not suggest she contacts, 20% unsure).

Figure 4.2: Panel members’ views on who Anita should go to if she has made a formal report about the ASB and she feels it is not being handled effectively.

Q. Who do you think she should go to next for advice / support, or to help resolve the problem? Please sort the cards into the three categories below: would suggest that she contacts, would not suggest that she contacts, unsure. Base: All panel members who answered Activity 2 task 6 (56)

Throughout the online community, there was a very strong narrative that the landlord should be responsible for resolving ASB – but mixed views on whether they were delivering on this responsibility. These views will be discussed further in the later section, ‘Experiences of reporting ASB’.

“Landlords need to understand that it is their responsibility to ensure their tenants’ safety both in and outside their homes.”
Female, 65+, South East

Knowledge of how to report ASB to a landlord

Panel members’ knowledge of how to report ASB was generally high. 80% of panel members reported that they ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that they knew where to find information about their landlord’s reporting process for ASB. Additionally, 96% responded either ‘Yes – definitely’ or ‘Yes – somewhat’ when asked if they knew how to report ASB to their landlord.

While many panel members felt they were relatively well-informed, others lacked clarity on the appropriate reporting process, were sceptical their landlords would respond appropriately, and felt that lots of other residents did not have the information they needed.

Figure 4.3 is a chart showing the percentage of panel members who knew how to report ASB to their landlord. When asked whether they knew how to report ASB to their landlord, 64% responded ‘Yes – definitely’, 32% responded ‘Yes – somewhat’, and 4% responded ‘No – not at all’.

Figure 4.3: Do you know how to report ASB to your landlord?

Q. Do you know how to report anti-social behaviour to your landlord? Base: All panel members who answered Activity 3 task 3 (56)

When to report ASB to a landlord

Despite the mixed views on what counted as ASB and what did not, 75% of panel members felt that they were clear on when it would be appropriate to go to a landlord about ASB, and when they would need to go to someone else. Echoing the previous findings, landlords were almost always the first port of call, unless criminality or immediate danger was involved, in which case, panel members felt that the police were more appropriate. Figure 4.4 shows the full range of responses on the question of whether participants were clear on when it is appropriate to report ASB to a landlord or someone else.

“Landlords must always be the first port of contact unless a crime has been committed.

Female, 55 – 64, South East”

Figure 4.4 is a chart showing the extent to which panel members agreed with the statement ‘I am clear on when it is appropriate to report anti-social behaviour to my landlord and when I need to go to someone else’. Panel members’ responses were: strongly agree (36%), agree (39%), neutral (13%), disagree (9%), strongly disagree (4%), don’t know (0%).

Figure 4.4: I am clear on when it is appropriate to report ASB to my landlord and when I need to go to someone else

Q. I am clear on when it is appropriate to report anti-social behaviour to my landlord and when I need to go to someone else. Base: All panel members who answered Activity 3 task 3 (56)

Where residents get information on how to report ASB

The most common ways that panel members gained knowledge on how to report ASB were: seeing information on the landlord’s website, being involved in a panel or advocacy work; or seeing information on social media posts. In addition, a few panellists also cited newsletters or the fact that they had advocated for other residents on ASB issues. There were few accounts of landlords sharing information on ASB reporting very clearly, though some felt that landlords had got better at this over the past few years:

“My landlord now promotes bringing ASB to their attention both in the newsletter and on the website.”
Female, 55 – 64, Yorkshire and the Humber

Figure 4.5 is a chart showing the most common responses to the question of where panel members gained knowledge about how to report ASB to their landlord. 70% found information on the landlord’s website, 54% know because they’re involved in a panel or advocacy work, 37% saw information on a social media post, 33% said the landlord shared the information with them directly, 11% had searched online and 11% had spoken to other residents.

Figure 4.5: Where panel members got knowledge about reporting ASB to their landlord

Q. You told us that you have at least some knowledge about how to report anti-social behaviour to your landlord. Can you tell us how you gained this knowledge? (Please select all that apply). Base: Panel members who answered ‘Yes – somewhat’ or ‘Yes – definitely’ to ‘Do you know how to report anti-social behaviour to your landlord?’ and answered activity 3 task 5 (54)

Confidence in landlords dealing with ASB

More than half of panel members (52%) ‘strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ that their landlord would take an ASB report seriously if they were to make one.

Figure 4.6 is a chart showing extent to which panel members agreed with the statement ‘If I made a report about anti-social behaviour, it would be taken seriously by my landlord’. 20% strongly agreed with this statement, 32% agreed, 20% were neutral, 13% disagreed, 13% strongly disagreed and 4% selected ‘don’t know’. 

Figure 4.6: Panel members’ views on whether their current landlord would take it seriously if they made a report about ASB

Q. If I made a report about anti-social behaviour, it would be taken seriously by my landlord. Base: All panel members who answered Activity 3 task 3 (56)

Panel members’ views were very mixed on the question of whether landlords are held accountable for the way in which they deal with ASB. 33% of respondents either ‘strongly disagreed’ or ‘disagreed’, whilst 49% either strongly agreed’ or ‘agreed’.

Figure 4.7 is a chart showing, in more detail, the extent to which panel members agreed with the statement ‘landlords are held accountable for the way in which they deal with ASB’. 20% strongly agreed with the statement, 29% agreed, 20% were neutral, 20% disagreed and 13% strongly disagreed. No panel members selected ‘don’t know’.

Figure 4.7: Views on whether landlords are currently held accountable in the way they deal with ASB

Q. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statements below. When answering these questions, please think about your current landlord. ‘Landlords are held accountable in the way they deal with anti-social behaviour’. Base: All panel members who completed Activity 3 Task 3 (56)

Awareness of / experiences of the ASB case review

1 in 4 (25%) panel members said they had not heard of the ASB case review when asked about it. Two panel members who had reported ASB in the last 5 years had received support or advice from the ASB case review. Their experiences were mixed and suggest that the process had speeded up action being taken, but not necessarily led to a conclusion that was fully satisfactory. 

“I have had one of these recently, and was not happy with the outcome as the case was closed without discussion with myself. The follow up call came before the letter advising the closure of the case. The case closure letter went to my mum, who had no direct involvement with the case. The Neighbourhood coordinator still has not been in contact to explain, and the perpetrators of the ASB are still two doors down 13 years later. [….] The ASB review team are swift and effective in getting everyone working together, but not with getting a suitable conclusion.”
Female, 45 - 54, North East

“That helped me move and they took my complaint seriously  and removed me from the building. … I was back bidding for accommodation to move and because of the community trigger, I went up a band so my re-housing was more of a priority. It took a year before I finally moved out. The officer at my local council was very kind and supportive. I was bullied out of my home it was a horrific experience … The damage they did is still ongoing - I am now trying to move from my rebound bid because I was desperate to move. I accepted what was offered.”
Female, 45 - 54, East of England

5. Experiences of reporting ASB

Reasons for not reporting ASB

Panel members who had experienced ASB, but had not made a formal report about it were asked for the reasons behind this choice. Notably, 33% did not report because they thought their report would not be taken seriously. More than 1 in 5 did not report because they were scared of retaliation (22%), didn’t want to make trouble (22%), or had seen others report and nothing be done about it (22%). 44% of respondents selected ‘Other’ and gave additional reasons such as:

• other residents had already reported the ASB
• feeling that the landlord would think the ASB was not extreme enough to be taken seriously
• not having enough evidence
• not having faith in the system (police and landlords specifically)
• worries about a complaint counting against them when their tenancy is renewed
• fear of the perpetrator of ASB finding out they had made a complaint (e.g. especially in cases where perpetrators were known members of organised gangs involved with weapons)

Figure 5.1 is a chart showing, in more detail, the most common reasons why panel members did not report ASB. 11% didn’t report ASB because they resolved the issue themselves, 11% didn’t know who to go to, 22% said that they had seen others report anti-social behaviour in the past and nothing was done about it, 22% were scared of retaliation from the perpetrator, 22% didn’t want to make trouble, 33% said they didn’t think their report would be taken seriously (33%), and 44% selected ‘other’.

Figure 5.1: Reasons for not reporting ASB

Q. ‘You mentioned that you have experienced or witnessed anti-social behaviour, but you did not report it. What were your reasons for not reporting your experience? (Please select all that apply)’. Base: Panel members who had experienced ASB but had never made a formal report about ASB (15)

Experiences of reporting ASB

As discussed earlier, most panel members reported that they had experienced ASB in or around their home (85%). Of these respondents, 75% had also made a formal report about ASB.

Drivers of negative experiences

Experiences of reporting ASB most commonly involved working with the landlord and/or the police. Negative experiences were driven by:

A lack of accountability and visibility: Here, feedback was about a lack of accountability from landlords and/or police. This was compounded by a lack of visibility. Many commented on the fact that landlords no longer had local housing officers or ASB teams visible in the community working effectively and building relationships with residents.

A lack of communication: Unsatisfactory levels of communication from the landlord after a report had been made were common, with some not even receiving an acknowledgement of their report.

Ineffective multi-agency working: Ineffective multi-agency working meant that some residents were passed from one organisation to another, telling their story multiple times without any action being taken.

Process: Many panel members felt that the burden of gathering evidence for ASB complaints lay on the victim, adding to their distress at a time where they were already suffering. Most frequently, panel members referred to being asked to keep a diary of ASB and to record incidents. Some also felt this was made worse by teams dealing with ASB not being properly resourced, leading to delays and unsatisfactory outcomes.

A lack of respect and support: Some panel members felt that reports were not believed. Some felt that victims were treated as the problem or stigmatised for raising issues, with many of these victims feeling blamed, rather than supported.

Unsatisfactory timelines: Panel members described long periods of time passing between reporting ASB and any measures to address the ASB being actioned. During this period the ASB would continue, and where this involved threats of violence or abuse, this was particularly distressing. Many also spoke about fear of repercussions while report investigations were ongoing – particularly where reporting was not anonymous.

“I was made to feel like the perpertrator of the incident rather than the victim.”
Male, 35 – 44, North East

“I have been a social housing tenant for nearly 30 years now and have experienced ASB from a drug dealer, drug addicts, alcoholics, teenagers and others. Reporting to the landlord had no effect. Their mantra was; keep a diary, keep a diary. At times other agencies were contacted but this took time. Everyone is inundated with work so long waiting periods. Meanwhile the abuse continues. […] Compare a breach of ASB with a breach of failure to pay rent. The latter will get a swift response from the landlord and if you don’t pay up, a trip to the court. […] There is talk of helping the perpetrator but what about the victim? The longer abusive behaviour goes on the more the victim suffers. It can drive a person to the edge. I have experienced it and seen others suffer. Prompt action should be taken by landlord as the victim has probably suffered for some time before reporting the matter.”
Female, 65+, South East

“My [landlord] passes the buck and asks for a crime incident number even when a crime hasn’t been committed. They often blame the victim and sometimes threaten them with written ASBOs if they continue to complain in order to put them off. A housing association should always fully investigate and take appropriate action within a week or so. […] Currently this is not happening.”
Female, 55 – 64, South East

Drivers of positive experiences

There were a few examples of where ASB had been dealt with effectively and successfully by landlords and other organisations. These examples featured:

• quick action from the landlord and other bodies such as the police, with effective joint working
• clear communication with those affected, sometimes including in person communication, community events and engagement where residents could share their views and concerns
• appropriate repercussions for the perpetrators and satisfactory resolution for residents

“This was a case of fly-tipping. My landlord took pictures and installed cameras to find out who was doing this. The residents were kept informed throughout the process. The items were removed and the cost of removing these items charged to the residents who had committed this.”
Male, 45 – 54, South East

“[My landlord has] a dedicated team that deals with issues like this. It was treated like a call log, with reference number. I was told I will be updated, which they did as it progressed. Then, I knew they have contacted the perpetrator, because he actually apologised to me, since we see each other often. [They] then gave me an option of escalating, and reporting to the Police. It was at that point that I informed [the landlord] that I wanted the case closed due to apologies I have received.[…] it took few weeks, from start to conclusion.”
Male, 55 – 64, London

“Recently on my estate there was anti social behaviour regarding drugs and dealing, it was dealt with by the police following which my landlord very quickly contacted neighbouring residents and set up a street meet event with police, local councillors, neighbourhood services officers etc so that people could be reassured the matter had been dealt with - also an opportunity for tenants to pass on other concerns. It was a really positive thing for them to do. […] My landlord has recently set up four tenant groups related to the Consumer Standards […] for those that attended there was advice about recognising anti social behaviour, when and how to report and what actions the local authority can take. They have also given advice in newsletters and on social media about how to report anti social behaviour.”
Female, 65+, South East

Outcomes

Of those who had reported ASB over the past 5 years, only 27% said their report had been resolved to a satisfactory standard. Almost 2 in 5 (38%) were not happy with the outcome of the complaint but did not take it further and 12% were unhappy with the outcome and took it further with another organisation (frequently the Ombudsman or the police).

Figure 5.2 is a chart showing, in full, the different perspectives on the outcomes of ASB reports and the percentage of panel members reporting each. 38% selected ‘I was not happy with the outcome of the complaint, however I decided not to take the complaint further’, 27% selected ‘The complaint was resolved to a satisfactory standard’, 23% selected ‘Other’, and 12% selected ‘I was not happy with the outcome of the complaint and took it further with another organisation’.

Figure 5.2: Perspectives on the outcome of ASB reports

Q. Which of the following statements describes how you felt about the outcome of your report? Base: Panel members who had experienced ASB, had made a formal report within the past 5 years and answered Activity 4 Task 11 (26)

Some panel members felt that the mixed outcomes were due to the complexity of dealing with ASB complaints. Others did not take this view and felt that clearer policy was needed in order to make outcomes more consistent. Some panel members explained that they did not receive any relief or resolution to the ASB issues they reported, leaving them feeling desperate and even suicidal due to the ongoing problems.

“Every case [of reporting ASB] is ‘bespoke’ from the very start and whilst in a way that’s not necessarily a bad thing it does leas to mixed outcomes.  I think it’s a human / people / communication thing coming up against the set wall of policies, procedures and legality. [There is tension between] the human side from the tenants and the rules side from the housing association.”
Female, 55 – 64, Yorkshire and the Humber

“[Even if] if you’re suicidal because of the situation […] instead of understanding how you as a victim are affected [the landlord plays] ping pong between you and the perpetrator or asking if you would like to move.”
Male, 55 – 64, Yorkshire and the Humber

6. What needs to change in order to improve the way ASB is dealt with

What landlords can do

Panel members identified four areas where landlords could make changes to improve how ASB is dealt with:

1. Accountability and visibility
2. Communication and respect
3. Support
4. Process

Accountability and visibility

Avoid passing responsibility to other agencies unless this is appropriate: most commonly, panel members felt that landlords passed responsibility to police or local councils even where this did not feel appropriate.

Follow through on warnings and sanctions: this was seen as important so that ASB perpetrators know that there are consequences for continued ASB.

Take responsibility for gathering evidence, rather than putting the full burden of this on the victim: this might include providing dictaphones for tenants without smartphones or doing home visits.

Improve record-keeping to ensure perpetrators are held accountable: panel members felt effective logging of issues would allow triangulation if there were repeat ASB offenders. Keeping clear records along with gathering feedback from residents, would also enable landlords to learn how to deal with future cases better.

Introduce well-known ASB teams with a visible presence and consider 24-hour ASB support lines and out-of-hours roving ASB teams. This could be a collaborative effort with other housing associations on ASB solutions (e.g. where properties are co-located or there is an opportunity to share best practice).

Make ASB teams more approachable and visible and ensure housing managers are more engaged with tenants.

“My personal experience is that housing officers do not take responsibility and tend to fob you off. This leads to distress for a person already under stress”
Female, 65+, South East

Communication and respect

Prioritise victims of ASB over easy solutions: some panel members felt that landlords were deliberately obstructive and sought not to engage with residents and stigmatised them for reporting.

Treat residents with respect: including avoiding generic email templates for all communications, offering in-person visits to discuss issues. The serious impact of ASB on residents’ lives must be acknowledged.

If a complaint is going to be closed, communicate effectively and in good time about why it is being closed, and give the reporter time to respond.

Support

Raise awareness of the ASB case review: this research showed that knowledge on this is currently limited and this would offer valuable support for victims and communities affected by persistent ASB.

If appropriate, allow for safe, anonymous reporting: this would allow residents to raise complains without fear of retaliation. Ensure there is consistent communication with both victims and perpetrators as in some cases those reporting ASB did not even receive an acknowledgement of their report.

Treat ASB holistically: the landlord needs to have effective partnerships to refer both victims and perpetrators to support organisations where this is required.

Treat residents as individuals and build a supportive relationship with those experiencing ASB: panel members felt that the process at the moment is not supportive of those reporting because they often felt stigmatised and ‘kept at arms length’.

Process

Set nationally agreed timelines for ASB resolution: these could be dependent on the seriousness of the situation, which could be graded.

Acknowledge reports promptly and move cases to court faster if appropriate though most panel members felt there were more appropriate ways to solve issues than taking the court route.

Ensure ASB policies are clearly communicated and consistently applied so that residents know what to expect and how to report.

Streamline the process to reduce the amount of bureaucracy and red tape involved in the reporting process for ASB. One panel member mentioned it felt excessive to note down the precise time and date for every occurrence of ASB.

“There should be clear recording of the interactions between all parties to a case review to enable learnings to improve the handling of future cases. All parties should understand that very often ASB is suffered by the wider community not just the original complainant.”
Male, 55 - 64, West Midlands

“I think there should be a timescale from the date of the first complaint within which the issue should be resolved. Within this timescale the landlord should get other agencies involved if needed - police, mental health agencies, parents if the issue is youngsters etc etc. The landlord needs to know who their tenants are and if they have issues - some people do lead chaotic lives and aren’t fully aware how their behaviour is affecting others. Landlords should be directing these tenants towards whatever help it is they need in order to curb their behaviour. […] Landlords must listen, take quick action, involve other agencies without delaying and see the issue through until it is resolved.”
Female, 65+, South East

What other organisations can do

Panel members felt there were two key areas where other organisations could make changes to improve how ASB is dealt with:

1. Improve multi-agency collaboration in responding to ASB
2. Strengthen powers

Improve multi-agency collaboration in responding to ASB

Strengthen partnerships between landlords, police, and councils to allow for streamlined referrals, data sharing and joint working - coordinating responses effectively would reduce the burden on victims to re-tell their story multiple times.

Recognise that evictions alone don’t solve ASB. Invest in community interventions that offer wraparound support services for both victims and perpetrators e.g. perpetrators’ mental health support and rehabilitation programs.

Have a clearly defined, nationally consistent, route of escalation if landlords do not respond or deal with ASB in a timely manner. Tenants are already able to escalate concerns about the landlord’s handling of ASB cases to the Housing Ombudsman Service. In addition, the ASB case review can be triggered where cases have not been dealt with effectively. This finding may therefore reflect either a lack of awareness of these measures; or a feeling that they are not functioning as intended or are not sufficient. 

“There should be a defined course of action nationally that escalates the issue if landlords do not resolve the issue quickly. […] The fact that many [landlords] do not discharge their responsibilities very well, if at all, it may well be time for all parties (tenants, landlords and government) to have a discussion about this. […] A national standard issued by the regulator and actioned by the Housing Ombudsman that all landlords are legally bound to follow. This needs to include the Police and Local Authorities so landlords have support from local agencies.”
Male 55 – 64, South East

“There needs to better coordination between police, local authorities and landlords. Contacting our local police is a nightmare and our LA are not much better and both say initially ‘it’s not their problem’.”
Male, 55 - 64, South East

Strengthen powers

Clarify police and landlord powers regarding ASB issues (e.g., drug-related offenses) and ensure police act swiftly and support landlords when ASB incidents escalate. Panel members thought it was important that the police worked more closely with landlords and other agencies to take ASB more seriously. The exact roles of landlords and police in tackling ASB was not clear for some panel members, with landlords telling residents to contact the police and get a crime number, only for the police not to act.

“The Police need more powers especially when dealing with cannabis users/dealers. My life was made a misery last year the whole summer by next door but one neighbours smoking cannabis all day everyday and at night wafting smoke and that pungent smell into my garden and house. I did all the necessary diaries for my landlord, but nothing ever came of it. Just saying contact the police and get a crime number even if there is no crime!”
Female, 45-54, East Midlands

“[There needs to be] the ability to effect direct action according to tenancy contracts. I have lived next to drug dealers for 12 years.  Despite all manner of upset along the way our landlord has always seemed powerless against them.  It should be as simple as enforcing a signed contract, our tenancy agreement states that we agree not to sell drugs… really that should be enough, but our laws are so convoluted that it’s not a reality.  More power to effect these actions needs to be handed down and have the police on board with it.”
Male, 45-54, South West

Landlords should have more authority to enforce tenancy agreements when ASB occurs.

Landlords should also have tougher sanctions applied if they do not deal with ASB effectively.

“The landlord only has limited power. I would like to see them given more power to deal with ASB. At the moment there is very little they can do which results in other residents suffering.  […]  The landlord should have the power to stop it.”
Female, 55 – 64, South East

“I don’t think landlords are held accountable because there is no “downside” for them if they don’t act. By that I mean that they don’t suffer any sort of penalty if an ASB case isn’t resolved. It also feels that there can be ‘buck-passing’ i.e. the landlord blames the police, or lack of funds.”
Male, 55 – 64, North West

“It’s the whole, entire system that is broken […] There needs to be massive change regarding the laws around anti-social behaviour.”
Male, 35 – 44, North East

7. Ideas for preventing ASB

What landlords can do

In order to prevent ASB, there were 5 key areas where panel members felt landlords could take action:

1. Encouraging community cohesion
2. Having a more visible presence
3. Tenancy screening checks
4. Consistently applying sanctions for perpetrators
5. Ensuring properties and communal areas are well-maintained

Encouraging community cohesion

Organising initiatives to bring communities together: many panel members felt this would support community cohesion and reduce ASB. Most felt that landlords had a crucial role in organising and supporting these initiatives.

“Where I live, there are regular events inviting people along and activities are put on - for example there was a Christmas light switch on, there was lots of things to buy and make. There was free hot food for children and adults alike… not sure who funded it but it was so lovely to see. Similarly there during the summer there is a jumble sale where everything is 50p, proceeds to the local community centre, some stalls are unmanned with a trust box placed next to them, [and we had] no problems or issues ever. [I] wish there was more of it. Resolving ASB boosts community spirit and is great for morale… but it is dependant on the locals to give up their personal time and get things organised to lift the spirit. […] If there are things for the children to do the parents will join in and contribute also, this will reduce ASB automatically.”
Male, 35 - 44, South West

Having a more visible presence

Landlords having a more visible presence in communities: there were suggestions about landlords proactively visiting their residents and listening to their problems to tackle them early on before they get worse.

“I think landlords need to get out of the office or home and get back on the estates. Getting to know the tenants and residents of the area can be a great way to understand what it going on in an area. You can’t get an understanding of the effect on the people over a Zoom or Teams meeting. Visible on the ground and getting to know the people in the area is the only way forward…a conversation can be a way to stop things getting worse but also making sure everyone knows further action can be taken and will be if nothing improves.”
Male, 55 – 64, Yorkshire and the Humber

Tenancy screening checks

Landlords should carry out more thorough tenancy screening checks for new residents to better understand the risk of them being abusive or violent to others.

Landlords should also be more consistent and decisive in evicting residents who persistently commit ASB.

“Have future tenants undergo a thorough screening process before they are offered tenancies - it is the landlord’s responsibility to not have existing tenants at risk of abuse and violence and feel safe in their home.”
Female, 45 – 54, East of England

Consistently applying sanctions for perpetrators

Consistently carrying out sanctions for those committing ASB would act as a deterrent for further ASB. This may include evictions and tougher responses but also related to regular contact and warnings.

Ensuring properties and communal areas are well maintained

Improving general maintenance would prevent ASB. This included ensuring properties are well-kept; that property entrances are secure with a proper lock, adequate fencing, sound insulation and lighting. Some also felt that well-maintained housing increases community pride and encourages positive behaviours.

“I think the Housing Ombudsman’s careful distinction between antisocial behaviour and problems caused by badly insulated homes that need soundproofing, is important. The more aware landlords’ staff are that noise causes harm and is also preventable, the better. I’ve lived below a household where a multi generation family lived […] None of the constant noise was anyone’s fault. It was exhausting living below it. I helped with the toddler and continually reassured the tenant I didn’t mind, but truthfully it was often hard to bear. The landlord did nothing about sound insulation.”
Female, 65+, London

“Where a landlord neglects to maintain a property in a good state of repair and decor, this has a knock on effect on residents and their sense of pride in where they live, and may also affect some visitors’ and residents’ behaviour. ”
Female, 55 – 64, London

What other organisations can do

In order to prevent ASB, there were 3 key areas where panel members felt other organisations could take action:

1. Taking ASB into account when designing properties
2. Promoting community cohesion
3. Better multi-agency working to tackle root causes of ASB

Taking ASB into account when designing properties

Organisations involved in the design of new developments should take ASB into account. This included installing CCTV (although there was a debate around cost of maintenance for this), securing block entrances, using appropriate sound insulation to minimise noise transference, and for bin stores to only be accessed by residents/authorised people.

“Install CCTV to blocks of flats. Ensure block entrances are secure. Design bin stores so they can only be accessed by residents and authorised personnel…how development is designed more broadly needs more thoughtful consideration to minimise opportunities for ASB.”
Female, 55 - 64, London

Promoting community cohesion

Funding local youth clubs or anything that promotes community interaction or builds community spirit was also suggested to prevent or reduce ASB.

“They could also help fund and promote local schemes such as youth clubs and anything that promotes community interaction and builds on community sport.”
Male, 35 - 44, East Midlands

“Youth clubs have closed [and I] think there needs to be more funding and support for young people and youth provision.”
Female, 55 – 64, North West

Better multi-agency working to tackle root causes of ASB

A more joined up partnership between different statutory, voluntary and private agencies is needed. This should involve an agreed system of communication between organisations. One panel member felt that better data sharing agreements would allow organisations to better tackle root causes of ASB which were often tied to mental health and deprivation. Early awareness of the problem could allow action plans to be put in place to mitigate and minimise issues. One panel member also suggested that training should be provided for perpetrators so they can learn the impact of their behaviour on others.

“More joined up partnership working with statutory, voluntary and private agencies [is needed]. I work in a recently merged HA […] We all seem to work in isolation; data sharing is highly guarded, understandably - however, in the long run it causes more problems. Knowing the problems in the first place allows action plans and awareness to mitigate and minimise issues before they arise.”
Female, 55 - 64, West Midlands

8. Conclusion

ASB was a common experience among panel members. 85% had experienced ASB. Of those, almost half (48%) had experienced it within the past 12 months.

Knowledge of how to report ASB was high within this group of participants, though they felt that a lack of knowledge is a barrier to reporting for others. Some felt that landlords are making efforts to better equip residents with knowledge on how to report.

Panel members were very clear that the landlord holds the central role in dealing with ASB issues among residents. 75% of panel members felt that they were clear on when it would be appropriate to go to a landlord about ASB, and when they would need to go to someone else (e.g. the police).

75% of panel members had made a formal report about ASB, and of those only 27% said their report had been resolved to a satisfactory standard. Those who had made a report in the past 5 years shared largely negative experiences.

There were clear areas where things needed to improve in order for ASB to be dealt with more effectively by landlords. Key areas were communication, respect and support; as well as streamlining the reporting process, reducing the burden on the reporter, taking quicker, more decisive action and being more visible and connected to the community. Other organisations could also play a role by strengthening the powers landlords and other organisations have in dealing with ASB and enabling effective multi-agency working.

Preventing ASB related to the following actions: community-cohesion activities, multi-agency working to tackle root causes of ASB, tenant screening practices, maintaining properties well; and designing properties to minimise ASB.

Appendix 1: Recruitment and method

The community required individuals to complete various activities designed to take 15 minutes in total. There was also the choice to contribute to an optional activity. All members of MHCLG’s Social Housing Resident Panel were invited to participate. A total of 76 residents accessed the community.

Panel members were able to complete the activities within the online community at a time that suited them and were supported by experienced moderators throughout. The activities included questions about the following themes:

• what counts as ASB
• landlords’ role in dealing with ASB
• lived experiences of ASB and the impacts
• experiences of reporting ASB
• preventing ASB

Appendix 2: Sample composition and segments

This section summarises the demographic sample of all 76 panel members who accessed the online community.

Figure A2.1 is a graphic showing sample composition. In terms of gender: 54% of the sample were female, 43% male, and 3% preferred not to say/information not available. Age: 56% were aged 55+ and 44% were aged 54 or under. Disability: 58% experience disability, 29% do not experience disability, 13% information not available. Property type: 14% live in a bungalow, 46% live in a flat, 34% live in a house, 3% live in sheltered accommodation, 13% information not available. Location: 4% East Midlands, 9% East of England, 8% London, 7% North East, 12% North West, 18% South East, 12% South West, 9% West Midlands, 20% Yorkshire and The Humber, 1% information not available.

Figure A2.1: Demographic information about panel members collected at recruitment

Q. Please tell us your gender

Q. What is your age group?

Q. Do you consider yourself to have a disability?

Q. Please select the type of property you live in?

Q. What region of the country do you live in?

Base: All panel members that accessed the online community (76). Note: This data was collected at recruitment stage for the panel by MHCLG.