Over the past 12 months, we have been contacted by over 50 people who have received unfair Community Protection Notices (CPNs) or Community Protection Warnings (CPWs). We reviewed their legal documents and accounts of events, and gained further details and insights in discussions over the phone or in person. These case studies – added to our existing database and published case studies – provide what is perhaps a unique insight into the on-the-ground use of CPN powers, as well as the effects of these powers on the lives of those who receive them.
In general, the problems with the use of the power that we have found over the past year are:
1. Low evidence requirements
Two CPN or CPW recipients in past month said that, when they requested to see the evidence against them, were told by the issuing authority that ‘we don’t need evidence’. The Statutory Guidance states that people should be told of the evidence against them, yet in our experience this almost never happens. The lack of evidence gathering, scrutiny and disclosure means that CPNs and CPWs are often issued on the basis of malicious accusations or untruths.
2. No legal support
Most people who contacted us requested information on how to appeal their CPN; they had not been provided with a clear description of how to do so, and the authority seemed unable to answer their questions. Several people were advised by the council or police to seek legal advice, and contacted us asking if we could recommend a solicitor. We are in contact with several members of the public who struggled to represent themselves in an uneven contest with council barristers. A dyslexic man in the north of England represented himself against a London barrister contracted by the council; even before the case had gone to trial, the council had spent over £7000 in legal costs. Another lady recently told us that she was given a quote of £20k plus VAT from a legal firm to appeal her police CPW.
3. Issued frequently to people with mental health problems
Many of the people who contacted us about CPNs or CPWs had mental health problems, either prior to the issue of the CPN, or as induced or aggravated by the stress of receiving the CPN. Local authorities do not seem to have procedures in place to exercise care when issuing CPNs to this group of people; at most, they include a link to MIND or another mental health charity in the letter or email when issuing the order. We know of several cases this year when a council was contacted by the GP or outreach worker of the CPN recipient, who explained their mental health condition and asked for the CPN to be withdrawn; this was ignored in every case. In one recent case, a CPW was issued (on the basis of false accusations) to a woman known to be suicidal, which significantly worsened her situation.
4. Worsen neighbour relations
The most common CPNs we receive are neighbour disputes; the use of ASB powers in these cases appears to significantly worsen the neighbour relation. At very least, the issuing of the order increases tension and non-communication in the neighbour relationship. In some cases, this goes further: the CPN increases the complainant’s aggression towards the CPN recipient, as they feel that they have the authorities on their side. In several cases we encountered this year, the complainant repeatedly taunted the CPN recipient and sought to annoy or provoke them, in order to get them to breach the order. The CPN recipient is often not listened to by the authorities, even in one case when they were assaulted by a complainant. Indeed, some CPN texts include a prohibition on the CPN recipient contacting the council or police about the complainant, in effect providing one party with immunity. In several cases we have encountered, the council sent a letter to the CPN recipient’s neighbours, or knocked on doors, either telling them about the notice or asking for evidence of misbehaviour. This stimatises the CPN recipient and creates a rift with previously friendly neighbours, in effect encouraging their scapegoating. Therefore, the intervention of the CPN power serves to turn a dispute into a public scapegoating of one party, leading to very damaging effects on their life, and in some cases their eviction or voluntary moving from the area.
5. Vague conditions
The Statutory Guidance specifically advises against the use of vague restrictions on CPNs, such as prohibitions on causing ‘any harassment, alarm or distress’ to any other person. Yet in our experience, this is the one of the most common CPN conditions, and is invariably included alongside more specific conditions. One man was required to ensure that he (and also his family and his associates) did not engage in any behaviours ‘which may cause harassment, alarm or distress’ to anyone in the locality; this was added to a CPW concerning alleged dog fouling. Such broad conditions mean that almost anything can be taken as evidence of breach of the CPW or CPN.
6. Scope for official bias
Because of the lack of due process or evidence requirements, there is potential for bias in terms of the official applying for the order. In a significant portion of cases we receive, the official either has personal reasons for issuing the order (for example, the CPN recipient previously complained about them), or else they are personally connected to the complainant. In one recent case, the complainant was a councillor and well-connected to the issuing authority. Such bias is permitted by the lack of testing standards and procedures before issue, and poor appeal processes after issue.
7. Severe impacts upon people’s lives
CPNs are issued very lightly and easily, but they can have a severe impact upon people’s lives. In almost all cases they lead to increased anxiety, health problems, and mental health problems – in sum, they lead to a declining quality of life, particularly declining ease or happiness of a person in their own home or in their ability to go about their life, or gain a livelihood or pursue their hobby. One man – prevented from flying model airplanes in the field behind his house – said that the CPN ‘ruins your life‘. In several cases we have encountered, CPNs had very severe consequences – in one case ruining a person’s business, in another preventing them from starting a business, in another leading to the destruction of their home. In several cases the issuing of a CPN has led a person’s housing association to evict them, since the CPN was taken as evidence of violation of the housing agreement; the person is therefore left homeless or dependent upon friends or relatives.
Recommendations
We recommend an urgent review of the CPN power, and a consideration of whether this power is fit for purpose. We urge the Home Office to carry out a systematic and multi-faceted study into the use and effectiveness of this power, including interviews with CPN recipients, and including a consideration of the harmful impact of this power upon people’s lives. (The only existing Home Office research into the ‘effectiveness’ of ASB powers was based on 24 interviews with 38 police officers and staff. As far as we are aware, Home Office researchers have never spoken to a CPN recipient.)
If the CPN is to remain, this should be in a greatly modified form, with guidance or legislative changes to ensure that it is used fairly and proportionately and that basic due process is followed. To this end, we have worked with CPN recipients to draft guidance in the issuing of CPNs, which we hope local authorities and police authorities will consider adopting.