Harrow’s “good neighbour” housing standards highlighted amid London-wide debate

The London Borough of Harrow is among a number of London councils that incorporate “good neighbour” principles into their housing and anti-social behaviour (ASB) frameworks, using tenancy conditions to regulate conduct that may cause nuisance or harassment within residential areas.
In Harrow, tenancy agreements expressly hold tenants responsible for the behaviour of household members and visitors. This contractual approach mirrors measures used by other boroughs, including Westminster City Council, which employs “Dear Neighbour” cards and mediation services, and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where housing management enforces strict behavioural obligations through tenancy and leasehold agreements. Barking and Dagenham has adopted a broader neighbourhood management model aimed at managing the cumulative impact of activity in local areas.
While commonly described as “good neighbour” policies, these arrangements do not have standalone legal status. There is no statutory duty in English law to act as a “good neighbour”. Councils cannot lawfully impose sanctions based solely on informal or subjective standards of neighbourliness.
The use of “good neighbour” language has nevertheless become a point of political and policy debate. Proponents argue that clearly articulated behavioural expectations support early intervention, reduce escalation of disputes and provide reassurance to residents affected by persistent nuisance. Critics argue that the terminology risks obscuring the legal tests that must be met, potentially encouraging inconsistent application or informal pressure on residents who may already be vulnerable.
This debate has intensified as councils consider applying similar principles beyond resident-to-resident conduct. In particular, some authorities are developing contractual clauses for external operators, including providers of homeless or supported accommodation, requiring them to manage the impact of their services on surrounding neighbourhoods. Supporters view this as a legitimate extension of neighbourhood management, while opponents warn that such clauses must be carefully framed to avoid indirect exclusion, displacement or discriminatory outcomes.
Harrow’s approach reflects a wider London trend towards formalising behavioural expectations through housing contracts, while also illustrating the continuing legal and political scrutiny over how far “good neighbour” principles can be relied upon in practice.