Anti-social behaviour is something that many of us have unfortunately become familiar with at some point in our lives. The varying forms it takes can have a truly devastating impact on individuals and communities. However, it is anti-social behaviour by social and council housing tenants that has become a particular issue in recent years, and one that I am well versed in, having entered politics ten years ago. The right to a roof over your head is one that we consider all people to be deserving of and so it should be. The homes we live in are our sanctuary from our day to day lives of work and education, where we should feel safe. Unfortunately, this is not the case for many people who are victims of anti-social behaviour where they live, which is why I sought a Westminster Hall debate to discuss the problem that thousands of communities are facing.
82% of adults in the UK report experiencing or witnessing some type of antisocial behaviour in their local area, with 1 in 6 saying they see it often. Shockingly, Nottingham Trent University released research in 2018 which found that those living in social housing were 30% more likely to witness or experience criminal anti-social behaviour, such as criminal damage and drug dealing, in comparison to homeowners.
Since I first became an MP, I have made no bones about the fact that many MPs are devoid from reality of how most normal people live, and the everyday issues they face. Many MPs have not lived on a council estate and are therefore unable to understand the level of security a family feels when they finally make it to the top of the list for a council house.
Back in 2015, I first debated antisocial behaviour in social housing whilst I was a councillor on Ashfield District Council, and I said much of the same as I am in this opinion piece. As both a councillor and an MP, I have dealt with antisocial behaviour on countless occasions, hearing from individuals who are driven to the edge because of someone else’s inconsiderate actions. Between January 2024 and January 2025, I have received 42 cases of anti-social behaviour in housing alone. We all want to live in peace and quiet, but sadly there are selfish individuals and families who do not care about making the life of their neighbours a misery, by creating noise, being threatening, drug dealing and littering. It is unacceptable and an insult to law abiding and hardworking folk. I have come to describe these nuisance families as ‘feral families’ because that is the only way to describe them. They have become a law unto themselves, taking their disruptive behaviour wherever they move to, causing mayhem.
I have become known for being outspoken and for ‘saying it how it is’ – something which I take pride in. We can’t dress up these issues and hide behind the real damage they are doing to our communities, and that is exactly why I will never sugar coat my approach. Deterrents have a habit of working, if they are tough enough, because individuals are made to realise that there are consequences for causing misery for others. I have called for a three-strike rule for nuisance tenants, before being evicted, however I now agree with the Member for Mansfield who suggested in the debate that it should in fact be a one strike rule. I am sure that the threat of losing their home will be a genuine wake up call for many nuisance tenants. It was effective when as a councillor I dealt with an anti-social behaviour case in a local Ashfield Park, where youths were making fires and attacking people. Colleagues and I wrote to the parents who were in social housing explaining that the behaviour of their children could mean they were breaching their tenancy agreement. After this, the anti-social behaviour stopped.
As I said in my Westminster Hall debate, the point of being an MP is to change things, to improve people’s lives and make them safer. What is the point of our roles if we do not do this? As outlined in the debate, social and council housing is a privilege and not a right.
“Feral” tenants must be taught that social and council housing is a privilege, not a right
