Antisocial behaviour: why we need far-reaching reform of the council
Despite a number of improvements introduced by IWCA councillors, the city council’s response to antisocial behaviour is still inadequate
In fact, in a number of recent cases involving problem tenants responsible for intimiding their neighbours and dealing hard drugs as well as causing noise and disturbance, we have actually seen the actions of the council work against decent law-abiding tenants and favour the antisocial ones instead.
Can this simply be put down to incompetence?
Or is there something else at work?
The evidence suggests that a combination of government priorities, entrenched attitudes among council officers, and a lack of will on the part of the New Labour and Lib Dem groups controlling the council is responsible.
Under government-imposed rules the already scarce supply of social housing is increasingly limited to those classed as ‘vulnerable’, many of whom are receiving treatment for alcohol and/or drug use (see explanation, right).
Although singled out for privileged treatment by the council, it is these tenants who are likely to be dealers and/or problem tenants.
On top of this, several reports we have received suggest that some council officers are continuing to worry mainly about the needs of the antisocial tenants rather than their victims, even after they become aware of the problems they are causing.
Through misplaced liberal concerns for the perpetrators, these officers seem to be ideologically opposed to taking the necessary measures to tackle antisocial behaviour, including evictions.
For years the ruling New Labour administration has been unwilling to challenge this attitude, either because it is afraid to criticise the officers or because it agrees with them in prioritising the needs of the antisocial minority over the majority of ordinary working class residents.
More recently, the Lib Dems-who now have some of the responsibility for running the council-have followed the same line.
The question now is how to turn things around on the council.
What is required is a full-scale reform of the way it operates.
None of the main parties has shown any interest in doing this.
On the contrary, they have used every opportunity to attack the IWCA when we have made justified criticisms of the council.
For a number of years the IWCA has been working to sort out antisocial behaviour problems.
Initially we were the only organisation on the estate prepared to draw attention to the issue and demand that all residents should have the right to enjoy their lives at home in peace, without the stress, disturbance and intimidation caused by a small, selfish minority.
In line with this we have run a number of successful public campaigns to get those responsible for persistent antisocial behaviour evicted from the estate.
Since the election of three IWCA representatives onto Oxford City Council in June 2004, we have also been using the council chamber to highlight the problem and improve the way the council deals with antisocial behaviour.
With just three councillors the IWCA has managed to introduce the following:
A co-ordinated approach to antisocial behaviour: under an IWCA motion adopted in July 2004 the council is obliged to work with other social housing providers in Oxford, such as housing associations, to develop a combined approach to tackling antisocial behaviour.
This would help, for instance, council tenants who were suffering from the activities of a nightmare tenant housed by a housing association, or vice-versa.
It would also help to ensure that all the housing authorities are using the most effective methods of dealing with antisocial tenants.
A review of elderly accommodation: Labour and the Lib Dems initially rejected an IWCA motion calling for the council to stop housing younger tenants with disruptive mental health, alcohol and/or drug problems alongside pensioners in flats originally intended for the elderly.
Fearful of a backlash, however, they agreed to a review looking into the problem which ended up confirming the IWCA’s complaint that pensioners are being subject to fear and intimidation by younger tenants in elderly blocks.
A process, which the IWCA is monitoring, is now underway to tackle this problem.
Tightening up procedures for dealing with antisocial behaviour: An IWCA motion was successfully submitted in November last year in reponse to long and unnecessary delays in dealing with problem tenants due to council mismanagement, which caused considerable distress to neighbouring residents.
The motion obliges the council to ensure it reacts promptly to antisocial behaviour problems, keeps residents fully informed at all times and correctly advises residents step-by-step on how to resolve the situation.
We intend to go further.
In particular we are looking at why the council continues to re-house tenants with a record of persistent disruptive behaviour, drug misuse and violence.
The IWCA aims to end this crazy policy, which has seen problem tenants moved between the various working class estates of Oxford, causing havoc everywhere they go.
But in order to press for the far-reaching reform that is needed we will need to increase our representation on the council.
With support from residents the IWCA can double its number of councillors in the May elections.
We would then be in a much better position to get to the root of the problem and push through significant changes to the council’s whole approach to antisocial behaviour.
At stake is the future of this community.
Is it going to be run by a small minority of antisocial elements or can the decent working class residents of Blackbird/Greater Leys regain political control of the area?
Leys Independent, issue 32, April 2006
| 
