People Overview & Scrutiny
Subject: Antisocial Behaviour in Social Housing Task & Finish Group Report
Date of meeting: 14th July 2026
Report of: Chair of People Overview & Scrutiny
Contact Officer: Name: Luke Proudfoot
Email: luke.proudfoot@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Ward(s) affected:
Key Decision: No
1.1 This report presents the final report of the Antisocial Behaviour in Social Housing Task & Finish Group to the People Overview & Scrutiny Committee and seeks approval from committee to send this to Cabinet for consideration.
2.1 People Overview & Scrutiny notes the Antisocial Behaviour in Social Housing Task & Finish Group Report attached as Appendix 1; and
2.2 Refers the findings of the Task & Finish Group Report on Antisocial Behaviour in Social Housing to Cabinet for consideration[VS1]
3.1 The Antisocial Behaviour in Social Housing Task & Finish Group (TFG) was set up by the People Overview & Scrutiny committee in July 2025 to investigate how Brighton & Hove City Council and local housing associations deal with reports of antisocial behaviour.[VS2]
3.2 The Task & Finish Group consisted of Cllr Jackie O’Quinn (Chair, until 13th Feb 2026), Cllr Milla Gauge, Cllr Julie Cattell, Cllr Ellen Mcleay, Cllr Bridget Fishleigh, and Angela Stretton (Older People’s Council representative).
3.3 The aim of the TFG was - having reviewed best practice - to identify whether any changes to the council’s[VS3] arrangements might be made to improve the lives of residents that are affected by antisocial behaviour in the city’s social housing.
3.4 The TFG carried out eight meetings with a range of internal and external stakeholders to gather evidence that has been used to form the recommendations that the TFG are putting forward to Cabinet for consideration.
3.5 These meetings were held with:
Meeting one
· Brighton & Hove City Council. Harry Williams - Director of Housing People Services, Justine Harris - Head of Tenancy Services, and Janet Dowdell - Tenancy Services Operations Manager
Meeting two
· Cities of Westminster Council. Rochelle Largan - ASB Service Manager
· Portsmouth City Council. Lee Hickman - ASB Manager
· Derby Homes (Arm’s Length Management Organisation of Derby City Council). Nick Bale - Anti-Social Behaviour Manager
Meeting three
· Guinness Partnership. Vicky Weir - Safe Neighbourhoods Manager South Region
· BHT Sussex. David Chaffey - Chief Executive and Paul Fagen - Head of Housing
· Hyde Housing. Craig Kendall - ASB Service Manager
Meeting four
· Moat. Kerrie Jenkins - Tenancy Specialist Manager
· Southdown. Jim Aspdin - Director of Housing & Assets
Meeting five
· Sussex Police. T/Inspector Emma Gee - ASB lead Brighton Neighbourhood Police Team and Steve Parker - ASB & Hate Crime coordinator
· Office of Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP. Domino Moore and Matilda Crawley
Meeting six
· Four anonymous resident witnesses from across the city
Meeting seven
· Brighton & Hove City Council. Harry Williams - Director of Housing People Services, Justine Harris - Head of Tenancy Services, and John Evans – Housing Manager
Meeting eight
· Brighton & Hove City Council. Victoria Paling, BHCC Customer Experience Lead, Richard Tuset, BHCC Director of Commissioning and Communities, Siobhan Bowstock, BHCC Senior Community Safety Caseworker, Brent Schwarz, BHCC Head of Health & Safety Wellbeing.
3.6 The minutes of the meetings are included as part of the TFG’s report, except for meeting six. The minutes of this meeting were circulated to the members of the TFG but are not being shared as part of the TFG’s report to protect the identities of the witnesses and anyone mentioned in their evidence.
3.7 Following the gathering of evidence the TFG have put forward the following recommendations as part of its final report:
1. A review of the allocations policy
2. Improving communications with complaints
3. Improving expectation management
4. Publicising work to deal with ASB
5. Improve process for sharing information about tenant ASB across all relevant departments including the police
6. Increased investment and improved training
7. Introduction of live-in caretakers/concierge in high rise blocks
8. Review of deployment and use of CCTV in BHCC-owned Housing Blocks
9. Lobbying for the introduction of a specialised housing court
10. Exploring the use of technology to record evidence and report ASB
11. Exploring the use of expert witness services
12. Ensure local Housing Associations are aware of information required for noise diaries, to avoid duplication
13. Strengthening the Response to Racism-Related ASB in Housing
14. BHCC should adopt and communicate a clear, proactive, and zero tolerance approach to discrimination within ASB casework
15. Review of the Client of Concern Register
16. Improving the use of language in complaints communications
3.8 The details and reasoning for these recommendations and the supporting evidence for them is included in the TFG final report at Appendix 1.
4.1 Having noted this report, the People Overview & Scrutiny Committee could
choose not to refer the findings of the TFG report to Cabinet.
5.1 Public engagement was carried out as part of the Task & Finish Group’s investigation via witness interviews, which are detailed in the final report at Appendix 1. The TFG included a representative from the Older People’s Council, which represents older people in the city.
6.1 No financial implications arising from this information report.
Name of finance officer consulted: Ishemupenyu Chagonda Date consulted: 02/03/2026
7.1 The proposal that this Overview & Scrutiny Committee simply note this Report and refer it (pursuant to the powers available to it) to Cabinet for its consideration is not considered to give rise to any legal implications.
Name of lawyer consulted: Victoria Simpson Date consulted 04/03/26
8.1 Maintaining the status quo would mean resource continues to be directed toward current arrangements which possibly aren’t as effective as they might be in tackling the issues. This could result in inefficient use of public funds where issues are ongoing - and increased risk of future payouts following complaints to the Ombudsman, as well as the ongoing (non-financial) cost to those suffering as a result of ASB issues which might be better dealt with.
9.1 None specifically for this scrutiny report.
10.1 None specially for this scrutiny report.
10. Health and Wellbeing Implications:
10.1 None specifically for this scrutiny report. The health and wellbeing of both victims of antisocial behaviour and of alleged perpetrators was considered throughout the investigation and is mentioned in the final report at Appendix 1.
11. Procurement implications
11.1 None specially for this scrutiny report.
12. Crime & disorder implications:
12.1 None specifically for this scrutiny report. Crime and disorder were a key theme of the Task & Finish Group’s work focusing on antisocial behaviour within council owned homes and housing association homes.
13.1 This report and its appendices set out the work carried out by the Antisocial Behaviour in Social Housing Task & Finish Group and seeks the People Overview & Scrutiny Committee’s approval to send the TFG’s final report to Cabinet.
Supporting Documentation
1. Antisocial Behaviour in Social Housing Task & Finish Group Final Report
2. Antisocial Behaviour in Social Housing Task & Finish Group Minutes of Evidence Gathering Sessions
[VS1]Haven’t had sight of the T&G Report so don’t know whether it has a clear set of recommendations which Cabinet can consider and approve - in which case the recdns need to incl recommendations for Cabinet as well as to OSC so this report can just be added to Cabinet agenda. Alternative wld mean you wld have to do a new & separate covering report to Cabinet - which am assuming is the plan given these recdns(?)
[VS2]Do we want to specifically reference the development since this was referred to OSC ie the decision of the Ombudsman reported here? Anti-social behaviour issues in Brighton sees ombudsman award compensation
[VS3]You will know best however wonder if this is better: ‘.. was - having reviewed best practice - to identify whether any changes to the Council’s arrangements might be made to improve etc ..’
[VS4]Suggest there *are* risks which need noting here. Those include the fact that maintaining the status quo would mean resource continues to be directed toward current arrangements which aren’t as effective as they might be in tackling the issues. Result is 1) inefficient use of public funds where issues are ongoing - and increased risk of future payouts (see link above) this apart from 2) the ongoing (non-financial) cost to those suffering as a result of ASB issues which might be better dealt with