Antisocial behaviour continues to have a significant impact on individuals, families, and communities. ASB Awareness Week is an important opportunity to highlight the tools available to tackle these issues head-on. 

One of the most notable developments under the Crime and Policing Act 2026 (the Act) is the extension to social housing providers of the ability to apply directly for Closure Orders. This enhanced power marks a significant step forward in enabling landlords to take swift and effective action against serious and persistent ASB.

Closure Orders are legal powers that allow a property to be closed for a specified period where it is associated with nuisance, disorder, or criminal behaviour. Previously, these orders were only available to the police or local authorities. The Act expands access to these powers, recognising the vital role that housing providers play on the front line of ASB management. Closure orders can be an instrumental tool and we welcome the extension. 

As a team at Anthony Collins, we have been assisting local authorities in obtaining Closure Orders for several years, working alongside them to make communities safer. 

We often find closure orders helpful where a vulnerable tenant has been ‘cuckooed’ (their property taken over by criminal organisations for the purpose of criminal activity, often the supply of drugs). The ability to apply for a partial closure order means that the tenant doesn’t necessarily have to lose their home (albeit the mandatory ground for possession is then available), but where they are unwilling or unable to control who is visiting their property and what goes on there, a remedy can be obtained. 

However, that is not the only situation in which a closure order is the most effective remedy. Recent examples include:

• A flat was attracting a large volume of known drug users, and Police and local authority monitoring of the situation didn’t clearly identify this as a situation of cuckooing – the drug users appeared to genuinely be friends with the resident. However, the volume of visitors and their behaviour at the property was causing a disturbance to neighbours, and the local shops were experiencing an increase in shoplifting from these visitors. The tenant and his resident son were both vulnerable and had a history of drug use, but had been clean for some time when the tenancy began. Professionals involved with the family suspected both had begun to use drugs again. A partial Closure Order was obtained, partly to provide relief to residents from the nuisance behaviour of the visitors, but also to give the tenant and his son a greater chance at “getting clean” again without the influence of other drug users at their home.
• Closing a bedsit property that had become a draw for local drug users to congregate and take drugs, behaving antisocially whilst there, including causing noise nuisance, being abusive to residents and leaving rubbish, bodily fluids and drug paraphernalia in communal areas. The behaviour began whilst the tenant was living in the property, but continued when the tenant was incarcerated, with visitors repeatedly breaking into the empty property. The closure order put an end to these visitors and their seriously antisocial behaviour whilst possession of the property was recovered. The local authority landlord did not need to identify the visitors and serve individual injunctions on them to exclude them from the property/block. The closure order had a universal effect and was a quick and effective route to eliminating the problem.
• Sadly, when the very same property was relet almost immediately, the new tenant began a course of behaviour similar to the previous tenant, with visitors causing anti-social behaviour whilst under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and criminal activity taking place within and around the property. Once again, a closure order was sought, excluding both the new tenant and all visitors pending the process to end the introductory tenancy and possession. Through the local authority continuing to have an open line of communication with the neighbours of the problem property, they were able to gather enough evidence to instruct us to apply for a closure order. By acting quickly, a closure order for 3 months was obtained, excluding the tenant from the property, whilst we pursue possession proceedings to end their introductory tenancy. This was again a swift remedy with universal application to provide quick relief to residents already blighted by antisocial behaviour in the block from their previous neighbour. 

Ultimately, the extension of powers under the Crime and Policing Act 2026 will equip social landlords with stronger tools. But as ever, success will continue to depend on early intervention, partnership working, and resident engagement.

By using Closure Orders appropriately and strategically, social housing providers can play a pivotal role in creating safer, more resilient communities for everyone.

For more information on Closer Orders, please get in touch.