What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store
February 26, 2025

What the Crime and Policing Bill has in store for ASB and Housing Providers

Yesterday (25 February 2025) the Government introduced the Crime and Policing Bill ('the Bill') to Parliament. Whilst the Bill requires some in-depth review, the initial headlines are:

  • Registered Providers given Closure Order powers; and
  • The introduction of Respect Orders; and 
  • The replacement of the current anti-social behaviour injunction regime with 'Youth Injunctions' and 'Housing Injunctions'; and
  • The requirement to provide Risk Assessments when making applications for Respect Orders, Youth Injunctions, or Housing Injunctions; and
  • The creation of an offence of cuckooing; and
  • The creation of Local Policing Body reviews; and
  • The obligation to supply ASB data to the Secretary of State. 


Closure Orders


The Bill gives Registered Providers the power to issue Closure Notices and apply for Closure Orders. 


This power will only apply to properties owned or managed by the registered provider. 


There are also provisions permitting a member of the providers senior management team to authorise 48-hour Closure Notices. 


There is no suggestion within the Bill that, having obtained a Closure Order, the registered provider could not then rely on the mandatory ground of possession. 


Respect Orders


Respect Orders are introduced by the Bill. These orders effectively mirror the current anti-social behaviour injunction regime however they can only be obtained against persons aged 18 or over. 


However, Respect Orders will only be available in respects of conduct which has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person. This means that Respect Orders will not be available in circumstances where the conduct amounts to housing related nuisance or annoyance. Where the conduct amounts to housing-related nuisance or annoyance an application will need to be made for a Housing Injunction (see below). 


Respect Orders are obtained through either the County Court or High Court however the breach of a Respect Order is a criminal offence. The punishment for a breach is either:

  • Up to 6-months imprisonment or an unlimited fine (or both) if convicted in the Magistrates' Court; or
  • Up to 2-years imprisonment or an unlimited fine (or both) if convicted in the Crown Court.


Respect Orders will open the door for the criminal courts to impose a wider range of sanctions (such as community orders) in the event of a breach. The courts will be prohibited from granting a conditional discharge for the breach of a Respect Order (but seemingly will be permitted to grant an unconditional discharge). 


These additional sentencing powers go some way to addressing the concerns raised by the Civil Justice Council in their 2020 report on Anti-social Behaviour and the Civil Courts. 


As the Bill is currently drafted, a breach of a Respect Order will not give rise to a mandatory ground of possession. 


When an application for a Respect Order is made the court will be able to treat it as an application for a Housing Injunction (and vice versa). 


Youth Injunctions


The Bill amends section 1 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the section which currently governs anti-social behaviour injunctions) so as to mean that these injunctions will, once the Bill comes into force, only be available in respects of persons aged under 18 (but aged 10 or over). 


These injunctions will be dealt with by the Youth Court and a breach will, in so far as the Bill is currently drafted, amount to a mandatory ground of possession under Ground 7A of Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988. 


Housing Injunctions


The Bill further amends the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 so as to introduce Housing Injunctions. The provisions in respects of these new injunctions effectively mirror the current injunction regime except that the anti-social behaviour must be housing-related. This means conduct which is either capable of causing:

  • Nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person's occupation or residential premises; or
  • Housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person (i.e. conduct which directly or indirectly relates to housing management functions). 


Housing Injunctions can only be granted against persons aged 18 or over. 


A breach of a Housing Injunction will seemingly be treated in the same manner as a breach of a current injunction however will not give rise to a mandatory ground of possession. 


When an application for a Housing Injunction is made the court will be able to treat it as an application for a Respect Order (and vice versa). 


Risk Assessments


Before applying for a Respect Order, a Youth Injunction, or a Housing Injunction a risk assessment must be completed. This assessment must contain prescribed information including:

  • Any known (or suspected) vulnerabilities of the respondent/defendant;
  • What alternatives are available;
  • The risks posed by the respondent/defendant. 


There will also be a requirement to have regard to statutory guidance in respects of risk assessments. 


Transitional Provisions


Any injunctions applied for or obtained before the Bill comes into force will continue under the current statutory regime and will not be effected by the Bill. 


Cuckooing Offence


The Bill creates a new offence of cuckooing (or 'controlling another's home for criminal purposes' to give it its full title).


The offence will be committed where:

  • Person A exercises control over the dwelling of Person B; and
  • Person A is controlling the dwelling for the purpose of using the dwelling (whether by himself or any other person) for one or more prescribed offence; and 
  • Person B does not consent to that control for that purpose.


The Bill defines 'dwelling' so as to include gardens and outbuildings along with any structures. 


The Bill also establishes a test to determine whether Person A has control of a dwelling. This includes whether they can control who enters/leaves the dwelling, whether they control deliveries to/from the dwelling, and whether they control the purpose for which the dwelling is being used. 


A further test in respects of establishing whether Person A (i.e. the occupier/tenant of the dwelling) has consented to the occupation is also introduced. This sets out that a person will not be taken to have consented if they are under 18 years old, lack capacity to consent, do not have enough information about the proposed use of the dwelling to make an informed decision, do not give their consent freely (e.g. circumstances where someone is threatened or coerced or controlled into giving consent), or they withdraw their consent. 


The current list of prescribed offences includes various drug, weapons, fraud, theft, exploitation, and sexual offences. There is also a power for the list of prescribed offences to be varied. 


Someone convicted of the offence of cuckooing can be sentenced to:

  • Up to 6-months imprisonment or an unlimited fine (or both) if convicted in the Magistrates' Court; or
  • Up to 5-years imprisonment or an unlimited fine (or both) if convicted in the Crown Court.


Local Policing Body ('LPB') Reviews


The Bill requires each local police force area to create and implement a policy in respects of LPB Reviews. 


A LPB Review will be an escalation from an ASB Case Review. A person can request a LPB Review where either:

  • They applied for an ASB Case Review but it was determined that the threshold was not met; or
  • An ASB Case Review was carried out. 


Whilst not expressly set out in the Bill it seems logical that a person would only request a LPB Review following an ASB Case Review if they were dissatisfied with the outcome. 


The LPB Review may give recommendations to other agencies (including registered providers) in respects of resolving ASB and the Bill will make it a statutory requirement for that other agency to have consideration of those recommendations when discharging their public duties and functions. 


Supply of ASB Data to the Secretary of State


The Bill gives the Secretary of State a power to require relevant authorities (which includes registered providers) to provide data in respects of ASB. The data requested can include data in respects of the number and nature of reports of ASV received, the responses to those reports, and information in respects of ASB Case Reviews. 


The Secretary of State will also have the power to prescribe how often this data is to be provided and the form in which it is to be provided. 


The Bill also expressly sets out that the requests from the Secretary of State may require an authority to collate, collect, and create information. This means that it will be highly unlikely than an authority will be able to say that they do not have the data requested and therefore absolve themselves of having to supply it. 


Points to Consider / Potential Issues


Breaches of Respect Orders and Housing Injunctions not giving rise to a mandatory ground of possession is concerning and will hopefully be something which is picked up on and amended as the Bill progresses through Parliament. 


The formal requirement to include risk assessments with applications for Respect Orders, Youth Injunctions, and Housing Injunctions may seem like an additional burden however, in practice, most registered providers will already be completing similar assessments in order to consider their public law obligations. This change simply means there is now clearer guidance on what information those assessments must contain and what issues they must address. 


The prosecution of persons who breach Respect Orders (or commit the new cuckooing offence) is not confined to the Crown Prosecution Service. This could therefore see registered providers having to move into the world of criminal investigations and prosecutions in order to protect their tenant's and their housing stock. 


The Closure Order power, whilst welcomed by some, may have unexpected consequences. For example, in possession proceedings (especially proceedings which relate to the conduct of persons visiting a property), registered providers may have to account for why they didn't opt to use their closure powers in order to show the proportionality of their decision to seek possession. Also, enforcement of Closure Orders is going to require support from the police and will not be something registered providers will be able to enforce themselves as they cannot arrest people for breaching the orders. 


The new LPB Reviews and duty to provide data to the Secretary of State may increase the administrative burden on registered providers. Consideration may, specifically in respects of the collection and supply of data, need to be given as to how current systems can be used to capture the data required. 


The Bill has only just had its first reading and no date for the second reading has been published. It is likely that the Bill will be amended as it passes through Parliament and that the final Bill may look substantially different to the current first draft. Also, if the Bill does become an Act, this does not mean that all of the proposed changes will immediately come into force. Some changes may not come into force immediately and indeed some may never be brought into force.


by Daryl Bigwood

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?
By Joseph Warren July 15, 2024
Recent CobbWarren court success clarifies the position on Access Injunctions
October 19, 2023
The Chambers UK Legal Guide 2024 was released today – with a familiar name making its debut appearance.
May 30, 2023
What does the Renters (Reform) Bill mean for the social housing sector? In this article, we look at the key changes that, if enacted, will affect housing associations and their tenants.
Show More