ASB Statutory Guidance published - September 2025
October 10, 2025

ASB Case Reviews: updated statutory guidance


On 17 September 2025 the Government published updated statutory guidance on anti-social behaviour. Although dated July 2025, the guidance only appeared on the gov.uk website in September.


The amendments primarily focus on strengthening the ASB Case Review process, making it more victim-centred and accessible. These changes respond to findings that many victims don't know about the Case Review process or feel unsupported when using it.


In this blog post, we look at some of the main changes.


1. Promotion of the ASB Case Review process

The Case Review process must now be explained to all victims of ASB who make two reports in any six-month period - regardless of whether they actually meet the threshold for a Case Review.


This is a significant change. Previously, many victims only learned about Case Reviews when they met the threshold. Now, you must proactively inform victims about this option even if their situation doesn't yet qualify.


What to do now: Review your ASB response letters and procedures to ensure every second report triggers information about the Case Review process.


2. Accessibility of the ASB Case Review process

The Case Review process must be accessible to all victims. This means the application process must cater for people who may not have internet access or smartphones, or who may have other support or assistance needs.


Practical implications:

●     Offer multiple routes to apply (phone, paper forms, in-person assistance)

●     Train staff to help victims complete applications if needed

●     Consider accessibility needs (language, disability, literacy) when designing your process


3. Victim inclusion and support

The guidance significantly expands on how victims should be involved throughout the process:

●     Victims should be able to choose their level of involvement

●     Victims must be consulted on any action plan before it's finalised

●     Victims should be invited to attend meetings (in person or virtually)

●     Victims should be invited to provide written impact statements


This shifts the Case Review from something done about the victim to something done with them.


The guidance also refers to the Victims' Code (2023), which gives people who have suffered harm from criminal conduct the right to support – whether or not the incident gets formally recorded as a crime or leads to charges.


What to do: Where ASB has been reported to police, refer the victim to local support services. Even where it hasn't been reported to police, make sure victims know how to access such services themselves.


4. Single Point of Contact (SPoC)

When a complaint progresses to a Case Review, the victim must be given a Single Point of Contact from the relevant organisation.


The SPoC is responsible for:

●     Being the victim's primary contact throughout the process

●     Keeping the victim regularly updated on progress

●     Notifying the victim when and why a case is being closed


What to do now: Designate who will be SPoCs before cases arise. Ensure they have capacity to maintain regular contact and understand their responsibilities under the guidance.


5. Independent Chair

Case Review chairs should have appropriate training in ASB procedures and legislation, and must be independent from the case itself.


Independence can mean appointing someone from your Community Safety Partnership who hasn't dealt with this particular matter, or bringing in someone from a neighbouring local authority.


Having an independent chair brings fresh eyes to assess what's been done and what else might help. They can challenge assumptions and suggest approaches the original team may not have considered.


What to do now: Councils should establish arrangements with neighbouring councils or Community Safety Partnership members who can chair reviews. Don't wait until a case arises to identify potential independent chairs.


Conclusion

The updated guidance is designed to increase awareness of, and confidence in, the Case Review process. It ensures victims are heard, supported, and kept at the heart of decision-making.


Landlords should review their ASB Case Review procedures now to ensure compliance with these strengthened requirements when handling victim complaints.

July 9, 2025
Awaab’s Law – Coming on 27 October 2025
June 5, 2025
Thiam v Richmond Housing Partnership – Another look at Hoarding?
February 26, 2025
What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store for ASB and Housing Providers
January 23, 2025
Are you prepared for Awaab's law?
By Joseph Warren October 21, 2024
Is an exceptional level of RPI good reason to depart from an increase in pitch fees at that level? – Mobile Homes Act 1983
By Daryl Bigwood October 14, 2024
Cobb Warren were recently successful in an appeal against the decision of a District Judge to refuse an application to include a positive requirement in an injunction pursuant to Part 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 ("the 2014 Act"). This took place in October in front of a Circuit Judge in the County Court at Bristol. Our client sought to include a provision requiring the respondent to engage with support services to help address the underlying causes of the anti-social behaviour the respondent engaged in. The District Judge at first instance refused the application on the basis that such an order would amount to an order of mandamus (orders of mandamus have, since 2004, been known as ‘mandatory orders’ - they are specific to public law matters) and therefore, pursuant to section 38 of the County Courts Act 1984. The District Judge said that the County Court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order. The appeal was argued on two points: 1. The order was not an order of mandamus (or mandatory order) as such orders are remedies in public law proceedings only and not private law proceedings; or 2. In any event, even if it were, the 2014 Act creates a separate statutory scheme which enables the County Court to include any positive requirements in an injunction in order to prevent the respondent from engaging in anti-social behaviour. The Circuit Judge hearing the appeal allowed the appeal on both grounds. In respects of the second ground, we advanced an argument that the decision in Swindon Borough Council v Abrook [2024] EWCA Civ 221 supported the ground as: 1. The Court of Appeal determined that the Court’s usual case management powers to vary or set aside an order of its own volition did not apply to injunctions under the 2014 Act. This was therefore indicative of the 2014 Act creating its own statutory scheme. 2. The Court of Appeal was considering an appeal from the decision of a District Judge in the County Court and determined, at paragraph 109 of that earlier judgment that a Court should consider making positive requirements. Therefore, the Court of Appeal seemingly accepted that positive requirements were available in the County Court. Overall, we achieved a good outcome for our client and obtained clarity as to the use of positive requirements. Such requirements can often be more effective in addressing anti-social behaviour, by addressing the causes of the behaviour, rather than simply prohibiting the behaviour itself. A review of the Court's powers in relation to Anti-Social Behaviour by the Civil Justice Council in 2020 emphasised the importance of including positive requirements in injunctions. One of its recommendation was to increase their use as a way of addressing underlying issue causing Anti-Social Behaviour. If you need to discuss the above case or require any guidance please get in touch with us.
September 12, 2024
Newsflash - Renters' Rights Bill 2024 
By Joseph Warren August 7, 2024
Responding to the riots: what powers do Housing Associations have?
Show More