ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

The intimidation of people who suffer from nuisance and antisocial behaviour – and of the housing staff tackling it – is all too common. To counter this, the Housing Act 1996, the Crime & Disorder Act 1998 and the new proposals in the antisocial behaviour bill have included phrases such as "caused or is likely to cause", or "capable of causing a nuisance or annoyance".

This has been a great help because it deals with the issue of witnesses too frightened to make formal complaints but where third parties or staff have been told of the behaviour or have witnessed it. These third parties have become known as professional witnesses.

They include housing staff and in-house surveillance teams. They might also include partner agencies – often, the best professional witnesses are the police.

In addition, there are commercial organisations that act as specialist professional witnesses. The best are often ex-police officers or soldiers who work as private investigators. The good ones provide a comprehensive service, from covert remote surveillance to providing "dummy" families, and are fully equipped to build a case to take to court. Their services do not come cheap but again the best will work strictly to a contract and regularly discuss outcomes and feasibility.

Tim Winter, National organiser, Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group

How can I get police data?
I am trying to amass evidence to support possession proceedings. Much of that evidence is held by the police, who also have conviction evidence about the tenant. I have requested the information but the force's data protection officer is refusing to disclose it. What is the legal position?

The Data Protection Act forbids the exchange of personal data – information that identifies a living individual, except in prescribed circumstances. One of those circumstances is outlined in section 32(2) of the act, which provides that personal data can be disclosed where it is necessary for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defining legal rights.

In this case, the disclosure is required for legal proceedings. Of course, any information disclosed should be relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose for which it is held.

I see no reason why criminal convictions that are relevant to the tenancy should not be disclosed. If they have breached the tenancy agreement, used the premises for illegal or immoral purposes or committed an arrestable offence in the locality of the premises, that information would support the case for possession.

Elisabeth Bradshaw, Associate at solicitor Lee Crowder specialising in ASB cases

Must we evict the whole family?
What are the alternatives to eviction in youth nuisance cases? In the past, we've sought possession orders and evicted the family, but this only shifts the problem.

Traditionally, social landlords have opted for possession proceedings and eviction in these cases. Tenancy agreements and the law make tenants responsible for the behaviour of visitors to and residents in their homes, including their children.

But there are more targeted responses. Injunctions against the under-18s are possible if you can identify a cause of action. They are hard to enforce for breach, however, because the court's committal powers do not extend to imprisoning under-18s.

Antisocial behaviour orders – which have been available to the police and local authorities since 1 April 1999, and to registered social landlords since 2 December 2002 – may be a useful alternative.

They allow anyone aged 10 or more to be brought before a magistrate if they have caused or engaged in conduct likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others not of their household and an order is deemed necessary to stop further antisocial acts.

A court could prohibit the young defendant from acting in a certain way. Common prohibitions include: not causing harassment, alarm or distress; not committing criminal damage; not associating with named individuals; and not going into defined areas. The orders last for a minimum of two years.

Breach of an order is a criminal offence. Youths between 10 and 11 can get community penalties; those aged 12-17 can be sentenced to a detention and training order for up to two years.

Interim ASBOs, ASBOs imposed after a criminal offence and county-court ASBOs are also available.

Sharon Heels, Senior legal officer at Kirklees council, specialising in ASB cases

How can we speed things up?
Any legal action we take to tackle nuisance and antisocial behaviour is always so slow. It discourages complainant and staff alike. Are there any ways we can speed up the process of obtaining ASBOs or injunctions?

In urgent circumstances, "without notice" injunctions – previously called "ex parte" injunctions – can be obtained in hours rather than days. They do not require the defendant to be notified in advance or in court and will provide temporary relief pending a full hearing.

Interim ASBOs have been available since 2 December 2002 under the Police Reform Act amendments to the ASBO rules. The case is presented to the court in outline, rather than being fully made. This is again a temporary measure pending a full hearing but it is already substantially challenging the myth that ASBOs are slow to obtain.

Organisation and preparation are key to speed of action. If you receive a report of serious nuisance, ask yourself: "Could we act quickly?" If the answer is no, stop and think why not and set up the procedures that would allow you to do so. That will mean creating effective channels of communication with your legal advisers, the police and local court manager.

Do not think that possession is the only legal action available..

Tim Winter, National organiser, Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group

Is CCTV admissible in court?
While collecting evidence in a possession/antisocial behaviour case, we have obtained CCTV footage of people coming from and going to the defendant's flat. Is this a breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act and can it be used in evidence?

The Human Rights Act does not stop housing associations or local authorities using discreet cameras to stop nuisance and antisocial behaviour and you can gather useful evidence in this way.

Social landlords who want to use CCTV are governed by a legislative framework, but compliance is not difficult or prohibitive. Each social landlord must have internal systems of control and authorisation, and give clear reasons for any covert operation and clear undertakings that any evidence gathered in such a way will be handled carefully and only used for the purposes for which it was obtained. The Home Office website has ample information, a good-practice guide for housing groups to adopt and an example authorisation form that will reduce the risks of failure to comply with these regulations.

Judges are regularly shown video footage of antisocial behaviour and nuisance recorded by local residents on their own equipment or by housing staff or private investigators employed by the social landlord. This evidence is admissible and very persuasive in court – and not just for civil court proceedings such as evictions and injunctions. ASBOs have been granted in magistrate courts with this sort of evidence.

There seems to be a growing misconception that the Human Rights Act prevents covert or discreet surveillance, which is a shame. The act requires the courts to consider the human rights of the community as well as the individual. In effect, judges should balance these rights case by case when deciding if evidence is admissible. And in courts up and down the country, judges have been deciding that the neighbours' right to peaceful enjoyment of their homes is of greater significance than the individual's right to privacy.

Adam Greenwood, ASB consultant Adam Greenwood Associates

It depends on whether you work for a local authority or a registered social landlord. If you work for a council, you should obtain authority to undertake the surveillance under the Regulation of Investigator Powers Act 2002. If no authority is obtained, the recordings may be in breach of the Human Rights Act and thus could be excluded as evidence – as well as opening the local authority up to a claim for damages.

An RSL is not listed in the investigatory powers act as one of the public authorities that can obtain internal authorisation to undertake such surveillance.

Such recordings may breach the Human Rights Act, article 8 of which states that a "public authority" can only interfere with a person's right to privacy "in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection and rights of freedom of others".

The Court of Appeal considered whether a housing association was a public authority – and could be challenged under the act – in Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Housing Association v Donahue. Poplar Housing was a large-scale voluntary stock transfer association and therefore was performing a role so close to that of a local authority that the appeal court decided that it was exercising a public function. This may not be the case with you.

If it was decided you were a public authority, interference with an individual's private life cannot be in accordance with the law because when undertaking surveillance you cannot grant yourself authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2002. Therefore, any act that interferes with the individual's private and family life, his home and his correspondence will be a breach of the Human Rights Act and thus give rise to a claim for damages and any surveillance evidence obtained being excluded from court proceedings in which they were being used.

If the covert surveillance you have obtained is intended to obtain information pertaining to people who visit a specific residence, this will probably involve private information about that person. It is therefore likely to be a breach of the Human Rights Act.

Elisabeth Bradshaw, Associate at solicitor Lee Crowder specialising in ASB cases