The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

The Role Of Mediation In Tackling Neighbour Disputes And Anti-Social Behaviour

5. RESULTS: MEDIATION CASES

Nature of neighbour disputes

5.1 Neighbour disputes going to mediation have been reported as falling into four categories (Dignan and Sorsby 1999). These are disputes that:

1. arise from inconsiderate or mildly anti-social behaviour
2. are serious, but arise from a personality or lifestyle clash rather than primarily from criminal behaviour
3. are byproducts of another problem e.g. domestic violence, drug use
4. involve mental health or other 'community care' problems.

5.2 There is no clear distinction, however, between categories, in that it depends what one defines as criminal behaviour, e.g. a wide range of behaviour could in principle be regarded as breach of the peace but may not result in arrest or charges. In our study, most of the mediation cases fell into categories 1. and 2. of Dignan and Sorsby's typology. Most were a result of inconsiderate or mildly anti-social behaviour or serious personality or lifestyle clashes (loud music, parties) (See Table 3). Noise related to wooden or laminate flooring contributed to a significant number of referrals to the mediation services. (Some local authorities, such as Stirling Council, have drawn up policy guidelines for their tenants to address the problem of laminate flooring, which has become a significant source of neighbour disputes). Many other referrals resulted from noise from children playing, dogs barking, domestic appliances including DIY activities, or other 'normal' living conditions. Approximately 56 percent of cases studied were noise-related disputes, 71 percent if one includes those which involve noise and verbal abuse, which are likely to be noise problems that have escalated.

5.3 In some cases, disputes that had arisen from mildly anti-social behaviour had escalated into verbal abuse alleged on one or both sides. Only just over one in ten cases concerned boundaries or common areas (rubbish, parking, fences or infrastructure). There was a similar profile of types of dispute across mediation services, although one community mediation service had a significant proportion of neighbour disputes that had originated in disputes between children. From the information available, there was no evidence that mediation services had taken on disputes stemming primarily from domestic violence or drug misuse, although a number were linked to mental health or other community care needs.

Table 3: Presenting issues of neighbour disputes to mediation services

Sources of referral and tenure of households

5.4 Significant variation was found in the referral routes between services, with in-house mediation service of local authorities generally having more housing referrals, and only one (community) mediation service receiving significant numbers from environmental health or the police ( Table 4). Self referrals were made for issues relating to verbal abuse, boundaries, common areas and children's disputes. As might be expected, referrals from environmental health and police frequently related to noise from parties and household appliances.

5.5 The tenure profiles varied locally depending on the aims and funding of the service and housing stock profile, but almost half (47 percent) of the total cases included non-council-tenant parties ( Table 5).

Table 4: Referral routes to mediation services

Table 5: Tenure of parties: mediation cases

Intervention by mediation services

5.6 Just under two-thirds of cases (61 percent) involved direct mediator contact with the parties ( Table 6). Face-to-face mediation was used in one-third of cases, but shuttle mediation in only nine percent of cases. This compares with national figures for community mediation services (quoted by Dignan, Sorsby and Hibbert 1996) who made greater use of 'shuttle mediation' (40 percent of cases) and slightly less use of face-to-face mediation (27 percent of cases). Local authority and community mediation services used similar levels of face-to-face and shuttle mediation. Local authority mediation services made a significantly greater use of visits, without further mediation intervention, compared to community mediation services. This may be because, as landlord, the local authority had an ongoing relationship with at least half of the parties. These averages conceal significant differences between individual services, however. There was no particular relationship between the mediation approach used and the type of neighbour dispute ( Table 7).

Table 6: Mediation interventions

Table 7: Mediation interventions and presenting issues

Recorded outcomes for neighbour disputes dealt with by mediation

5.7 Table 8 shows the outcomes for all 100 cases, as reported by the mediation service provider. Between community and in-house mediation, the profile of outcomes is similar, although it appears that in-house services have a higher rate of 'no response' from one or more parties, whereas community mediation services have more cases where the parties respond but either choose not to use mediation or find that mediation does not work.

5.8 In 28 percent of the cases examined in our study, the recorded outcome was agreement on all presenting issues. This is higher than the UK-wide survey of community mediation service which reported complete agreement in 23 percent of cases (Dignan, Sorsby and Hibbert 1996). These 'successful' cases outcomes were spread across different presenting issues. Including those where agreement was reached, in a total of 61 percent of cases there was a positive outcome, in that either the problem was resolved or there was some improvement in the situation, either with or without mediation. In 39 percent of cases, mediation was refused or did not produce a positive outcome. This proportion is similar to previous research by Dignan, Sorsby and Hibbert (1996) who reported that in 37 percent of cases, mediation was refused or did not lead to a 'positive' outcome.

5.9 In our study, different outcome profiles may reflect different referral routes and the degree of seriousness of cases referred, rather than the performance of the mediation services. To track the processes towards these outcomes would require further intensive interrogation of the practices of each agency and the case profiles. For example, one local authority mediation service alone accounted for 22 out of the 25 cases where the recorded outcome was no response from either party or both parties. If there was no further problem, then this could be considered a 'successful' outcome, but this is not possible to judge from available records. This finding does raise issues relating to the assessment of cost-effectiveness, as these cases are very inexpensive, as will be shown below. Moreover, one of the main aims of mediation services is to introduce the concept of non-adversarial dispute resolution to the general public, and this positive outcome may well be achieved even where no agreement or improvement in the situation is visible in the short term.

Table 8: Reported outcomes of mediation for neighbour disputes

N.B. Outcome categories shown are those used by community mediation services. These are used in abbreviated form in the tables below.

Table 9: Outcome by mediation type

Table 10: Outcome by nature of mediation case

5.10 As Table 9 shows, not surprisingly, face-to-face and shuttle mediation are associated with making of agreements between the parties. Although face-to-face or shuttle mediation was used in only 42 percent of cases, it was generally successful: in only three percent of cases face-to-face or shuttle mediation took place but 'failed' due to withdrawal or irreconcilable differences. As Table 10 shows, a range of outcomes can be seen across all types of case.

Participants' views of outcomes

5.11 One mediation service provided the results of questionnaire follow-up with parties to five (noise) disputes which were recorded as having reached agreement or partial agreement. In five out of five cases, the parties responded that 'things are generally better'. To compare recorded outcomes of mediation with outcomes according to the parties themselves, telephone interviews were undertaken. The results of 27 interviews with participants from three mediation services are presented below.

5.12 The main referral route for most participants was their local housing officer who was often aware of the difficulties between neighbours. Six participants mentioned that their local police officer also suggested mediation. One participant found out about the mediation service through a Citizens Advice bureau. In general, participants felt that referrers had adequately explained what mediation was about. One reported: Housing told me exactly what was going to happen and it did, but my neighbour had a different idea of what she wanted.

5.13 The largest category of disputes concerned complaints about domestic noise from music systems, televisions and laminate flooring. The second major cause for complaint was the behaviour of children, including noise, arguing, fighting, littering and vandalism. Verbal abuse, boundary issues relating to fences, bins and driveways, intimidation and communication breakdown concerned the remaining participants.

Table 11: Outcomes according to participants

5.14 Table 11 compares the outcomes recorded by mediation services with those described by participants. Eight participants felt they had reached an agreement, although these weren't always the cases that had been recorded as such. Two cases recorded as 'amicable resolution' and one recorded as 'partial agreement were' described by the participants as having reached an agreement. In four cases recorded as 'agreement', the participant reported that no agreement had been reached. Although limited conclusions can be drawn from a small number of responses, there is a significant discrepancy between the number of positive outcomes (full or part agreement, amicable resolution or situation improved) recorded and those described by participants (18 compared to ten).

5.15 Six participants felt their agreements were still in place and two felt that the improved situation had remained. Three participants felt that their agreements had fallen apart and two participants felt that although the problem had initially been resolved, it was now going back to the way it was prior to mediation. Seven participants felt their situation to be much the same whilst four participants felt the situation had quietened down. In one case, the situation improved although the parties had not taken part in mediation, and in two other cases the situation had improved because one of the parties had moved away. In two other cases the participants were hopeful that a move was imminent. Council anti-social behaviour investigators are now involved in three cases.

5.16 Where no agreement had been reached, some disputes were going to be tackled by legal measures, and others were allowed to run on; for example, the following contrasting comments were made about the current situation:

I sit in the spare bedroom because of the noise in the living room, but I am just going to let it go and hopefully they will move out soon. I am not going to complain to the renting office again.

The anti-social behaviour team is involved now.

5.17 Thirteen participants felt that the mediation process had been helpful, whether or not the dispute had been resolved ( Table 12). A number of participants commented that the mediators were helpful and that the process went very well, even in serious disputes, as the following comments illustrate:

The process of getting the two parties together is very good particularly where physical violence has been involved.

We were at the end of our tether, it was either mediation or court.

Table 12: Participants' view of mediation process

5.18 Prior to accessing the mediation service, seven participants had attempted to resolve the dispute by talking to their neighbours, all had been unsuccessful.

I tried to approach him twice but he the shut the door in my face.

5.19 The following participants highlighted the positive impact of involving a third party:

I had approached my neighbour in the past to no avail. Having a third party involved made all the difference.

I have been trying to solve this for a year but it was escalating and getting worse. Having a third party helped especially when my neighbour realised I had contacted someone else.

5.20 Three participants felt that mediation hadn't resolved their problem and commented:

His anti-social behaviour is still carrying on. All this could have been prevented but it has since deteriorated again. There is no point going back to mediation, I'll probably go to the papers soon.

My neighbour would complain about almost anything. My feeling is that I didn't get much help from the mediation process. I am now going to my solicitor and will take it through the courts.

I was disappointed with the mediation process. It gave my neighbour a licence to tell lies and ridicule me. It is a body without teeth.

5.21 The process of mediation requires the participation of both parties involved in the dispute, as the following participants commented on their lack of progress:

We didn't go through the mediation process because my neighbour didn't answer any letters.

We had our coats on to go to the mediation session when the mediators phoned to tell us that our neighbour had changed her mind and wasn't coming now. She refused to take part.

5.22 Four participants found the process unhelpful because their neighbour refused to participate. Three participants felt that the process of mediation raised difficulties for the following reasons:

I felt they were more to her side. She had her landlord to speak on her behalf when the mediation team visited her, I had nobody. It has been a difficult time for me.

I didn't agree with taking turns because my neighbour kept going on for ages and I had forgotten half what was said. It would have been better if we could have taken shorter turns. Also I knew my neighbour was lying through her teeth and Mediation had a letter from the housing office stating that this was the case but they didn't say that.

5.23 One participant felt that she would have preferred shuttle mediation but wasn't given the choice. She comments:

I couldn't sleep the night before our face-to-face meeting. It was one of the worst situations in my life. She called me a liar and her attitude during the meeting was awful.

5.24 It can be concluded from this small number of interviews that outcomes recorded at the close of a case are not necessarily a reliable guide to the longer term outcomes. This is not to say that outcomes are always worse than those recorded; they may be better. There is, however, a disparity between recorded outcomes and the views of participants in a significant number of cases. Interviews with participants also offer greater understanding of the challenges facing mediation, but show a generally positive view of the process, even where it does not bring the desired outcome. Some participants have, however, found the mediation process harrowing, which suggests that mediation services may have to take greater care over preparing the parties for face-to-face meetings and consulting participants about the forms mediation might take.

« Previous | Contents | Next »