Mayo council tenants could face eviction for anti-social behaviour under new strategy by local authority
Mayo County Council is set to give itself stronger powers to tackle anti-social behaviour in local authority housing under a new Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy, including the ability to evict tenants for repeated offences.
The draft policy, which has been developed by the Housing Strategic Policy Committee (SPC), will go before the full council in April, alongside all legal advice given to the committee during the preparation of the document.
A key element of the strategy is the council’s ability to terminate tenancies without providing alternative accommodation.
Chair of the SPC, Cllr Peter Flynn, described this as “the most important” piece of policy for helping to reduce anti-social behaviour.
“They [tenants] will not have to be considered for alternative accommodation because in effect they have made themselves voluntarily homeless,” Cllr Flynn said.
“That is really important because, heretofore, someone could be thrown out of a house and present themselves back at the municipal district office, and the council felt an obligation that they had to rehouse them.”
Under the draft policy, acts of anti-social behaviour will be seen as a breach of Mayo County Council’s tenancy agreement.
The strategy sets out a number of ways that the council will deal with anti-social behaviour.
These range from carrying out discussions with tenants, offering advice, hosting mediation between the complainant and offender, issuing a series of warning letters, and ultimately terminating a tenancy.
Council staff will determine the severity of an offence, but Cllr Flynn said: “If there is a serious breach in terms of anti-social behaviour, then it should be one strike and you’re out.
“People are lucky enough to get a house, they should respect it, respect the rules, and respect their neighbours.”
While the policy will affect local authority tenancies, the SPC decided to include tenants receiving Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) and Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS).
This prompted some pushback from the council’s legal advisors, who highlighted that both tenancy types are classified as private residential tenancies under the Residential Tenancies legislation.
The appropriate route to dealing with anti-social behaviour under these tenancies is via the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB), not through the council.
In both forms of tenancy agreement, the local authority pays a portion of the individual's rent.
Legal advisors warned that attempting to evict HAP or RAS tenants, or attempting to stop rent payments, could leave the council open to legal challenges.
They would have to defend any decision in court and prove that its powers, under Section 28 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009, which allows local authorities to manage and control their housing stock, extend to HAP and RAS tenancies.
Despite this, the SPC agreed to include HAP and RAS tenants, arguing that they should be held to the same rules as council tenants.
Cllr Flynn said the decision “will need to be backed up by Government legislation to the same effect”, as there is currently no procedure in place to block council payments being made.
During discussions on the inclusion of HAP and RAS tenancies, Cllr Kilcoyne voiced his support.
“If people are being kept awake because guys next door to them are drinking and shouting all night, and the taxpayer is paying their rent for them through HAP or RAS, then the council has to withdraw the money they are paying,
“If people are not happy about it, let them challenge us in the courts,” he said.
If the draft policy is approved by the full council in April, the council will write to the Department of Housing to request that legislative amendments be made that allow it to take direct action on tenants involved in anti-social behaviour, including the ability to block rent payments where necessary.
As part of the new strategy, the SPC has also requested that annual reports be compiled detailing the number and nature of all anti-social behaviour complaints in the county, and the number of evictions that have been carried out once the policy is in force.
Cllr Flynn said council executives indicated that there “has only been one eviction in Mayo” for anti-social behaviour since “the town councils were abolished” in 2014, and outlined his hope that the new strategy will be more effective in tackling the issue.
At its core, the strategy aims to give the council clear legal authority and establish structured procedures to reduce and manage anti-social behaviour.
It sets out to: address all complaints of anti-social behaviour, adopt a coordinated multi-agency approach to deal with cases, ensure council staff are trained and capable to handle complaints of anti-social behaviour, reduce intimidation of staff, and minimise vacant council housing stock.
Under the strategy, all complaints will be investigated fairly, alleged offenders will be interviewed, challenged or cautioned, and all new tenants will be informed of the policy through pre-tenancy training and the tenant handbook.
A multi-agency approach has been central to developing the strategy and will remain key when it is implemented, with the council working closely with state and voluntary agencies to support community development.
Cllr Flynn emphasised that the policy has been “well thought out and well debated” and that the SPC is confident it will “stand up to scrutiny if it goes to court.”
This article has been funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme.