Case study on Positive Approaches to Managing Behaviour 

The Knowledge Hub stresses the importance of community for resilience. Within any community, the behaviour of its members and how they treat each other is fundamental to strengthening or weakening relationships.

This case study draws on the strategies and experience of three of our research partner charities as they developed their positive approaches to managing behaviour:

• United St Saviours Charity (UStSC )
• The Sir Josiah Mason Trust (SJMT)
• Durham Aged Mineworkers Homes Association (DAMHA).

We use information from site visits, formal interviews with staff and informal interviews with managers, as well as the policies, procedures and other documents from each charity to draw out the learning points. We explore how effective policies and procedures can help to support community resilience in almshouse communities. Our partners emphasised the importance of positive and preventative approaches to encourage appropriate behaviour in almshouse settings.

The range of behaviour that can be termed ‘anti-social’ is not always agreed on. Complainants are often described as ’victims’ and the people complained about as ‘perpetrators’, but some partners explained that relationships may be complex, so this may not always be as clear as these terms suggest.

The case study looks at these questions:

1. What are key policy aims and objectives for managing behaviour?
2. What types of behaviour can be considered unacceptable or anti-social?
3. What is a positive approach to managing behaviour in an almshouse charity?
4. What can be learned from examples?
5. What are the main challenges in managing behaviour?
6. What happens if serious anti-social behaviour continues and cannot be managed successfully?

1. What are key policy aims and objectives for managing behaviour?

All three partner charities have updated and developed their policies and procedures over the past few years. They all start from the basis that, within the almshouse community, everyone has the right to live or work in a peaceful, quiet and safe environment, so there is a responsibility to act in a manner that respects other people. For residents, this is clearly stated in each charity’s Letter of Appointment. See Additional Information below for an extract from SJMT’s Letter of Appointment. Partners stressed the importance of ensuring that this is explained at the outset and through reminders from time to time. Prompt action can minimise the risk of situations escalating and becoming more serious. All three partners have clear target times to respond to complaints about behaviour.

2. What types of behaviour can be considered unacceptable or anti-social?

A wide range of behaviours may have an impact on the almshouse community of residents, staff and trustees, as well as on visitors and contractors.

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 defines anti-social behaviour as conduct that:

2.1 Has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person

2.2 Is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or

2.3 Is capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.

Partner charities explained that their policies and procedures address a wide range of negative behaviours that can impact on people living or working in almshouse settings. Their policies and procedures refer to:

• Excessive noise, for example from TVs, music, shouting, loud parties
• Nuisance caused by pets and other animals, including barking and fouling, environmental quality issues such as litter, damage to communal areas, graffiti, fly-tipping, abandoned vehicles, car repairs
• Aggressive, abusive or threatening language or behaviour
• Any behaviour which is deliberately intended to harm, harass, intimidate or bully a person
• Actual violence against people
• Drug or alcohol related incidents
• Using accommodation to sell drugs or other unlawful or criminal activities
• Hate behaviour that targets members of identified groups because of their perceived differences – race and ethnicity, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, mental health, disability.

Partners found that ‘anti-social behaviour’ was not well-understood by residents, nor by some staff. It’s possible that this lack of understanding could be linked with memories of news reports about ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders), often with a focus on criminal behaviour and problems in public spaces, since 1999. ASBOs were introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Since the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, ASBOs no longer exist. The 2014 Act kept the term ‘anti-social behaviour’ and partners continue to use it in their policies and procedures. The 2014 Act also included new injunctions that are available for housing-related behaviour. Injunctions are discussed in Section 3.4 below.

All three partners had had incidents relating to visitors. Residents may not understand that they are also responsible for the behaviour of their visitors, so this needs to be clearly explained and included in the policy and procedures. For example, UStSC’s policy (para 2.2) states:

‘A resident will be guilty of anti-social behaviour if he or she causes it; or if invited friends are guilty of such behaviour and the resident was aware of it or could have been reasonably expected to be aware of it; or if the resident incites, encourages or fails to try to stop such behaviour’.

At one partner, some housing staff had been unaware that neighbour disputes could be considered as anti-social behaviour. Training in the new policy and procedures emphasised that low-level issues between neighbours could be deemed anti-social and the new policy and procedures provided options including asking residents to record any issues. This partner also works with local Police Community Support Officers, local authority neighbourhood wardens and local councillors. Other partners also referred to working with local police or Police Community Support Officers, including inviting them to attend meetings with residents.

3. What is a positive approach to managing behaviour in an almshouse charity?

Preventative steps can include:

• training sessions or workshops for staff and/or residents
• reminders in communications with residents, such as newsletters and posters on notice boards
• ensuring that staff follow up any incidents: partners used different systems, including a tracker in their housing management system or a spreadsheet
• providing easy-to-use reporting mechanisms
• provision of support to victims and witnesses
• always reporting criminal activity to the police.

Approaches included:

• arranging to talk to the complainant/ witnesses/ victim as soon as possible
• discussing the situation and advising on what can and cannot be done, because sometimes there is nothing that the charity can do
• asking the victim how they would like the charity to act
• involving other agencies to provide support for the victim and the perpetrator
• asking the victim to keep a detailed diary of events
• explaining clearly what is happening at each stage.

Partners pointed out that comments and complaints about a neighbour’s behaviour could often be resolved after one visit from a staff member, talking to them together or separately. Many are not formal complaints, just a resident drawing something to the attention of the charity.

If something more was needed, partners had a range of options depending on the nature of the problem and how the resident responded, including:

• Mediation
• Acceptable Behaviour Contracts
• Verbal or written warnings
• Injunctions

3.1 Mediation

Mediation can be a very effective solution to anti-social behaviour and partners suggested it should be offered wherever appropriate. For mediation to take place, all those involved in the behaviour (whether victim or perpetrator) must voluntarily agree to take part in mediation and to be reasonable during the mediation. One manager (a trained mediator) commented that when offered, residents usually agreed to mediation, but often looked on it as an informal chat about the situation, rather than a formal session, even though they always received a written explanation about the purpose and ground rules for the mediation process.

Ideally, mediation is always considered at an early stage to resolve a dispute, to be conducted by a third party, a mediator: this may be someone in-house who may be trained as a mediator, but separate from the staff member who has dealt with the issue, or an external mediator for which there may be a charge. Some partners had access to a local authority or voluntary agency mediation service. Partners commented that mediation can be useful in cases where communication between parties appears to be at the centre of the problem.

The Almshouse Association has a mediation scheme with the Society of Mediators that member charities can access: see Additional Information below.

3.2 Acceptable Behaviour Contracts

All three partners have sometimes used Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, because:

• they are flexible and personalised and can be implemented quickly
• they can help the person to understand the impact their behaviour is having on others around them
• the person can be supported to reduce or stop the anti-social behaviour before it escalates
• they can be appropriate for dealing with vulnerable people who are displaying anti-social behaviour.

Note that although the word ‘contract’ is used, they are not legally binding contracts on either the charity or the resident, but this term is used to stress that they are important and can have legal consequences. The person causing the anti-social behaviour agrees to stop certain types of behaviour and signs the contract to say they understand that a repeat of the behaviour may result in losing their accommodation.

They are only effective if:

• the language of the contract is not ambiguous, too specific or too general
• the person can easily understand the contract
• a member of staff is designated to monitor the behaviour described in the contract
• there is a firm response if the contract is broken.

3.3 Verbal or written warnings

In addition to or as a result of an Acceptable Behaviour Contract, the person causing the behaviour can also be issued with verbal or written warnings, depending on the seriousness of the anti-social behaviour.

Warnings, whether verbal or written, are more successful when they are issued soon after the anti-social behaviour has taken place. If the warning is ignored, then further warnings may be needed.

Warning letters may include:

• a description of the anti-social behaviour that has been observed or complained about
• clear information that the behaviour is anti-social and not acceptable
• an explanation that the behaviour is a breach of their occupancy conditions and/or is against the law
• the paragraph(s) from the occupancy agreement indicating how the person has breached their agreement
• advising the person that their behaviour is being monitored
• a clear indication that there will be further action if the behaviour does not stop, so before eviction (setting aside) is considered
• a final letter to include the words ‘Final Warning’.

3.4 Injunctions

An injunction is a civil court order for an individual to refrain from doing specific acts. Injunctions can have some advantages over other legal action in that they can be:

• immediate: an injunction can be obtained within 24 hours
• universal: injunctions can be taken out against anybody
• multiple: injunctions can be taken out against groups of people.

See Additional Information below for the 2014 Act which includes civil injunctions for behaviour that is housing-related or anti-social. One partner’s policy refers to the potential to use of this for visitors or other people who are not residents (see examples in Section 4.4 below).

If the complainant is suffering a nuisance, the complainant may be supported to contact an advice service or a solicitor for independent advice.

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 can be used to protect staff and residents, with proceedings  instigated by the individual with support from the charity.

4. What can be learned from examples?

We start with some positive examples where early interventions helped to diffuse what could have escalated into something more serious. The following examples show how implementing a clear policy and procedures can resolve issues before they escalate.

4.1 Neighbour issues, problems, disputes, complaints, or support needs?

Partners commented that residents frequently did not understand the impact of their behaviour on their neighbours, and some were upset once they did understand the impact. It wasn’t always clear whether an incident was a neighbour problem, a dispute, a complaint or perhaps a new support need.  Some issues can blur the line between safeguarding or self-neglect and what could be considered as unacceptable behaviour or other breaches of the occupancy agreement.  We learned of examples of poor personal hygiene, but it could also be poor hygiene in the property, significant clutter and hoarding.

In the example of Resident A, it wasn’t a complaint because the residents’ motive was concern: they told the charity that they were worried about the declining personal hygiene of Resident A, so they raised their concerns and their aim was to find a solution so that the resident could continue to enjoy the facilities in the sheltered housing. Managers also explained that they would consider whether additional support or external services were needed. In this case, it was support with using the shower. For chargeable services, welfare benefits advice may also enable the resident to claim disability benefits to help pay any charges.

4.2 Noise nuisance, health problems

Not all problems came to light through resident complaints: some concerns were also reported by housing or technical staff.

All three partners had examples of problems and complaints about loud noise, often from neighbours’ TVs or music. In one example, the issue was causing anxiety for both residents. After a meeting with both residents and a member of staff, there were still reports of noise from the neighbour’s TV: the resident with the TV even stopped flushing the toilet at night, in case it disturbed their neighbour. When the problem continued, both residents agreed a plan: one resident agreed to have a timer to turn off their TV each evening, and the other resident (the complainant) agreed to keep diary sheets with dates and times. This had the advantage of engagement from each resident in finding a solution, and solved the “He said, she said” problem that so often arises in neighbour disputes. The diary sheets showed noise disturbance at night when the TV was turned off by the timer, and at odd times in the day when their neighbour was out.

The manager held a separate meeting with the complainant and a supportive relative, who explained that the resident used a tiny hearing aid because of hearing problems, but the charity didn’t know about this. The relative supported the resident to attend a hearing checkup: this confirmed that the complainant had tinnitus (the sensation of hearing a sound when there is no external source for the sound).

In another health-related example, Resident B suddenly started walking into neighbours’ properties and shouting at them. The neighbours didn’t understand what was happening and told the charity. After contacting a relative, the manager found that the relative had been concerned about the resident for some time, and a test confirmed that the resident had a possible diagnosis of dementia.

Resident C had moved into sheltered housing but had some communication problems. A few longstanding residents complained that if support was needed, the resident should be in residential care. Staff worked with the residents to explain that support could be provided for many different reasons, and Resident C is now well settled, gaining confidence and attending events.

4.3 Different lifestyles

All three partners commented on neighbour problems and some complaints resulting from lifestyle clashes. Tensions were reported between some residents who have lived in the almshouses for many years and newer residents, who may also be from different backgrounds. Partners also described tensions where a small group of longstanding residents felt that they were ‘in charge’, and this experience was confirmed by our research. One manager said:

“There’s an inner circle of residents who have been there for a long time, who dominate the communal spaces”

(Governance interviewee 18).

In another partner charity, some longstanding residents complained that a new resident had frequent visitors in the evening, although initially there was no disturbance. They complained because of their anxiety about having external people in the building after dark, as this hadn’t happened before. Staff worked with residents in small groups to discuss about communal living in sheltered housing, explaining that it was reasonable to have visitors, including in the evening. After another complaint that one of these visitors was often alone for long periods in the evenings in communal areas, staff spoke to the resident and also sent a formal letter to emphasise that residents are responsible for the behaviour of their visitors. Later, after a noisy party in the flat one weekend when the police were called, the charity sent another letter to the resident, warning that this was against the terms of occupation: since then, there have been no further incidents.

4.4 Potential use of injunctions

One partner had two examples concerning people external to their sheltered almshouses. In Example A, a resident’s previous acquaintance gained entry to the gardens and the charity called the police when the person refused to leave. The manager was pleased to find that the police responded promptly when told that there were elderly residents, and then calmly escorted the visitor off the premises.

In Example B, a resident’s adult son had previously burgled another resident’s flat. The resident no longer had contact with their son, but he was due to be discharged from prison. The charity supported the resident to write a letter telling the son not to visit the almshouse. The manager explained that for both examples, the 2014 Act civil injunction could be the next step if either person tried to gain entry to the almshouses again.

5. What are the main challenges in managing behaviour?

The many examples described by our three partners suggest the following challenges:

• Visitors’ behaviour, especially if encouraged by a resident
• Cases where the perpetrator refuses to engage with the charity
• Cases where there is an overlap with Safeguarding
• Complex relationships, for example, between complainant/victim and perpetrator, or where either/both have additional needs
• Confidentiality issues, for example, when residents think that the charity is not acting over very serious breaches, but residents will only know what has happened after the perpetrator has moved out following set-aside
• Situations where the complainant expects a result, but there is nothing more that the charity can do: examples include lack of evidence, or a problem originating outside the almshouse
• Cases where the perpetrator refuses to engage with support offered from internal or external sources
• Lack of timely access to NHS support, including for residents with mental health or substance abuse issues
• Limited or no access to support from other agencies: reasons can include services limited or closed following loss of funding.

6. What happens if serious anti-social behaviour continues and cannot be managed successfully?

All three partners described the very few cases where they had had to set aside the resident’s appointment (resulting in eviction) because the anti-social behaviour was so serious in terms of impact on the resident community and staff. Each charity emphasised that their approach is only to use legal action as a last resort, and only after all other options had made no difference. Partners also tried to secure additional help from health services and external agencies. Before a possession order can be issued, the charity needs to be able to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to resolve the anti-social behaviour and that this is the last resort.

Conclusion

We end with a summary from one manager that also reflects the comments of other partners. For this manager, the key was positive relationships with their residents, together with having clear policies and processes, because this also allowed the charity to try informal processes first to solve problems in a positive way. Their suite of policies is to ensure that someone can stay in the almshouse and is designed to support people, not as a stick to beat people with. Having policies and processes provides consistency, so that residents know what they will be getting from the charity.

Additional Information

Limitations

All references to legal or regulatory requirements relate to English law and regulations. Our data collection was done in England and over 99% of almshouse charities are in England. Different laws and regulations may apply in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The Knowledge Hub is not a definitive source for legal or regulatory information.

ASBOs and Injunctions, England

The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced ASBOs, with later changes in the Police Reform Act 2002.  The purpose was to protect local communities from anti-social behaviour, defined as behaviour which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more people who are not in the same household as the perpetrator. Partnership working between police, local authorities and social landlords was encouraged and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts were developed at the same time.

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaced ASBOs with different options, including new civil injunctions for housing-related behaviour or anti-social behaviour occurring more widely in a community, and the ability to seek positive obligations for a defendant, such as attending drug or alcohol projects.

Mediation

Almshouse Association members can take advantage of a mediation scheme set up in conjunction with the Society of Mediators to help resolve issues and conflicts that might arise within their charities. There is a charge for this service and mediation sessions can be by telephone or Zoom, or in person with the charity to provide a venue for the mediation.

Extract from SJMT Letter of Appointment

17. YOUR DUTIES

You agree:

Nuisance

(9) Not to do anything, or let any visitors you have do anything which annoys or causes, or is likely to cause, a nuisance to other residents, the Charity’s staff, people living in the adjoining properties or anyone going about their lawful business in the locality.

(10) Not to do anything or let any visitors do anything which is likely to harass or disturb other residents, the Charity’s staff, people living in the adjoining properties or anyone going about their lawful business in the locality for any reason including (but not only) harassment on grounds of race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability.

(11) Not to play, or let any visitors play, any audio equipment or instruments including (but not only) radios, televisions, cassette recorders or CD players, so loudly that it is likely to cause a nuisance to other residents living in the Almshouse.

(12) Not to be, or threaten to be, violent or let any visitors to be, or threaten to be violent towards other residents, the Charity’s staff, people living in the adjoining properties or anyone going about their lawful business in the locality.

(13) Not to do anything or let any visitors do anything in the Communal Areas or the Almshouse which results in disruption of any resident’s right to peacefully occupy the whole of the Almshouse or to do anything which results in distress or physical harm to any other resident, the Charity’s staff, visitors or adjoining occupiers.