What are Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs)?

Anti-social behaviour remains a persistent issue in communities across England and Wales. This behaviour often leads to legal proceedings where the rights of both the public and vulnerable individuals must be carefully balanced.

To tackle anti-social behaviour, legislation such as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003, and the Policing Act 2014 provide local authorities, housing associations, and courts with a variety of tools, including anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs), criminal behaviour orders, anti-social behaviour injunctions, and closure orders.

When such proceedings reach the courts, the issue of costs can be particularly significant, especially where a local authority brings proceedings against a vulnerable individual.

ARC Costs was recently instructed in a matter involving an anti social behaviour possession claim, in which the Defence was ultimately successful, resulting in a costs order in favour of a vulnerable individual who resisted eviction from their property, based on allegations of anti social behaviour. This case highlights not only the complexity of anti social behaviour orders (ASBOs) and related proceedings but also the critical role of experienced costs professionals in ensuring a fair outcome for all parties.

Background to the Case

In this matter, the Applicant was a local authority that sought possession of a residential property under the Housing Act 1996. The grounds for possession were based on allegations of antisocial behaviour by the Respondent.

Such cases are typically pursued where residents or neighbours have raised repeated complaints about nuisance, intimidation, or conduct that interferes with the rights of others.

What made this case distinctive, however, was that the Respondent was a vulnerable individual who lacked capacity. This presented the court with a difficult balance; on the one hand, the local authority had a duty to protect the community and tackle anti social behaviour, but on the other, it had to ensure that the Respondent’s rights were safeguarded.

The local council pursued the possession claim with reference to legislation such as the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 and the Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014, statutes designed to provide remedies for disruptive behaviour. A police officer had provided supporting evidence relating to complaints from neighbours and community members.

Despite these measures, the Defence successfully argued that the Respondent’s vulnerabilities required proportionate consideration and that possession was not an appropriate outcome.

It also transpired that some of the neighbours’ allegations had been exaggerated/falsified, and that the Respondent had been taken advantage of via various manipulation and fraudulent practices of others in the locality.

The Role of ARC Costs in Assisting the Respondent

ARC Costs became involved in the matter at the stage where costs estimates to Trial were required. Our role was to provide detailed, realistic costs budgeting to ensure transparency and compliance with the court’s directions.

Following the successful Defence, the court ordered that the Respondent be awarded costs. This was a significant result, given the imbalance of resources often faced when individuals defend themselves against applications brought by well-resourced public bodies.

We were subsequently instructed to prepare the Bill of Costs and to deal with Points of Reply when the Applicant local council challenged aspects of the Bill. Our team engaged in negotiations regarding quantum, though the matter remains ongoing at the time of writing and is likely to proceed to a Detailed Assessment hearing.

What Challenges are made in Costs Proceedings?

The issue of costs in anti-social behaviour litigation can be complex. Proceedings often involve multiple stakeholders, including the local authority, residents, and sometimes the magistrates’ court where related criminal behaviour orders may have been sought.

In this case, the following challenges were particularly notable and raised in the Points of Dispute:

Capacity Issues – Preparing a Bill of Costs where the client lacked capacity required sensitivity, particularly when dealing with how the case was managed and what costs were reasonably incurred.  There were also considerations as to the elevated costs in dealing with a vulnerable client who, on being deemed to lack capacity, required the input of the Official Solicitor, but still needed to be attended upon directly to obtain their responses to evidence filed by the Applicant.

Legal Aid Considerations – While legal aid is sometimes available for possession proceedings involving vulnerable individuals, funding may not always cover the full scope of representation. Costs orders therefore play an essential role in ensuring that successful Defendants are not left at a disadvantage.  In this case, the Respondent successfully secured legal aid funding, and the case was in fact registered as a Very High Costs Case (VHCC) due to the complexity of the proceedings.

In legal aid matters in which an inter-partes costs order is made, the indemnity principle does not apply to the hourly rates claimed however, the same are still subject to submissions as to reasonableness and the appropriate grade of fee earner.  In these proceedings, a Grade A Senior Solicitor had conduct of matters owing to the complexity of issues in dispute, and the additional aspects of consideration to be given to the dispute in view of the Respondent’s vulnerabilities.

Disputes Over Reasonableness – The Applicant’s solicitors raised numerous challenges in their Points of Dispute, arguing that certain work undertaken was excessive or unnecessary. ARC Costs provided a strong response in the Points of Reply, justifying why the work was both proportionate and reasonable in light of the complexity of the matter.

Issues as to proportionality were also raised on the basis of the Respondent’s vulnerability, this being a specific factor to be taken into account pursuant to the factors set out in CPR 44.3(5).

Assessment – With negotiations ongoing, the matter is likely to proceed to a detailed costs assessment unless negotiations can result in an amicable resolution to matters.  If the matter proceeds to assessment, the court will determine the appropriate figure payable. ARC Costs’ expertise ensures that the Respondent is well-positioned to recover a fair and reasonable sum.

How Can ARC Costs Assist with Detailed Assessment Proceedings?

At ARC Costs, we specialise in providing clear, strategic, and effective costs solutions across a wide range of disputes, including matters arising from anti-social behaviour orders, possession claims under the Housing Act 1996, and cases brought under the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014.

Our team can assist from the outset by preparing accurate costs estimates to Trial, through to the preparation of detailed Bills of Costs, Points of Reply, and representation at detailed assessments.

We understand the particular challenges faced by Defendants in proceedings brought by a local authority, especially where legal aid is limited or unavailable.

Our expertise ensures that vulnerable individuals are not left disadvantaged and that successful parties recover a fair and proportionate level of costs. Whether through skilled negotiation or robust advocacy at assessment, ARC Costs provides the professional support needed to achieve the best possible outcome.

In addition we are independent, and this means that we act for both Paying and Receiving Parties across different matters.  As a result, we have informed views of both sides’ potential positions and submissions when it comes to assessment proceedings, to ensure that all potential risks are taken into account.

If you would like more information on any of our services or wish to speak to a member of our expert costs team about your legal costs, then please do not hesitate to contact us. Please call one of our independent experts at 01204 397302, or email one of our costs experts direct on info@arccosts.co.uk.

Follow Us