A nightmare neighbour’s flat has been closed by court order after numerous complaints about anti-social behaviour there.
Brighton and Hove City Council applied for the order to close Marshall Mathers’s flat, in Newick Road, Moulsecoomb, yesterday (Thursday 16 April) for at least three months.
Mathers, a former hairdresser and a fan of the rapper Eminem, was previously known as Glen Dowsey and Colin Dowsey. He moved into the street in February 2023.
Neighbours said that they had no complaints until September that year when they started receiving abuse because he thought that people had complained about him to the council.
A neighbour, who asked not to be identified, was relieved to see the flat closed and said: “I feel like we can finally relax for a while after three years of abuse and threats.
“It feels incredible that one person believed us and took us seriously. Of course, there is still the chance our neighbour could come back but, for now, we’ll enjoy the peace.”
Neighbours said that armed police were called out after Mathers was involved in a fight on Wednesday 6 August last year.
After a three-hour stand-off, Mathers’s two XL Bully dogs were removed. It was not his first stand-off with officers.
And previous court hearings have been told about Mathers’s history of drug addiction, a record of related offending and his volatile behaviour.
Last November, residents’ representatives spoke about two shocking incidents to highlight how the council was still placing people with a history of serious anti-social behaviour in housing next to vulnerable people.
A written question about Mathers’s behaviour was submitted to a council housing management panel where tenant representatives discuss issues with councillors and officials.
The meeting was told that an 82-year-old neighbour was terrified for her life when an axe that did not belong to her was found in her shed.
Mathers had also climbed into a neighbour’s bedroom through a window, it was alleged.
At the time, council officials acknowledged the trauma of the continuing situation and accepted that the homes allocated to people in need were “not always right”.
After the court hearing, the council said: “We took legal action against a tenant following serious anti-social behaviour and have worked with residents in the area to get a closure order.
“We’d like to thank residents for providing witness and impact statements. Alongside CCTV and supporting evidence from Sussex Police and other agencies, these were crucial in allowing us to take this action.
“We understand the distress and disruption this situation has caused within the community and apologise for the time it took to resolve. We need to follow a robust process and the hearing was delayed by court backlogs.
“We have remained in regular contact with affected neighbours throughout the process. We will continue to offer support and take all necessary steps to protect residents and restore stability to the area.”
Members of the council’s People Overview and Scrutiny Committee set up a task and finish group focusing on anti-social behaviour in council and housing association properties in July last year.
He shouldn’t be allowed to go under that Name.
Actually disrespectful to the Artist it’s self.
But glad he’s been evicted but will he return after 3 months like People think, or will the Council rehouse him in a Studio flat not among Families on a Estate that have to listen to it all, allday.
Not many single Men get 1 Bed Flats within Council, he should be made to behave, do community work and earn it, not just think he’s Entitled.
There’s an interesting conversation to have one of these days about the “entitlement” of social housing, and the responsibilities of having that benefit. I think we’re likely of the same mind that it is a privilege, that, if abused, should be removed. Because sometimes, it does feel like bad behaviours are rewarded whilst being stable individuals are neglected.
No doubt he will be moved by the council to Kemp town, where degeneration is the normal day to day thing., will the real slim shady please stand up. No the man’s just Stan.
Did none of the councillors who supposedly represent the people of Moulsecoomb comment? Were any of them involved in solving this problem? Or the MP, who apparently has never been spotted in the electorate, did he take up the issue? People need to hold their elected representatives to account.
To be fair, the MP wouldn’t be involved in this, and because of the legal aspects, it would be inappropriate for Ward Councillors to be involved in the process, beyond bringing it to the legal department’s attention. I suspect that they all would have comments to make; it does seem like the council are being more proactive in using Closure Orders, I’d be interested to see a detailed breakdown of ASB numbers, measures used, and outcomes.
His dogs did nothing wrong, let that be known. They’re lovely dogs and we had been trying to save them from this monster for many months. He would not comply despite wasting the time of many people in rescue. This has caused such an incredible amount of distress to say the least. He’s also had another dog die in his care whilst being in this flat and while his dogs have still been held by the police for no reason. They shouldn’t suffer for him. And also don’t label them xl’s…just because they were exempted doesn’t mean they are. I spent many many months trying, as have several other people and were broken seeing this!! The police have ignored us as have the council too.
Rarely are the dogs a problem; it’s the owners.
“just take away their housing.” Because nothing says *stable, safer community* like making someone homeless and hoping they magically become well-behaved.
The council already has legal powers—and they’ve literally just used them here. It took evidence, police involvement, and a court order. That’s how it works in a system that isn’t just handing out punishments based on vibes.
If you start lowering the bar to “bad behaviour = lose your home,” then you’ve got to answer a pretty big question: who decides what counts? Noise complaints? Arguments? Being unpleasant? Because once you open that door, it won’t just apply to the extreme cases everyone agrees on.
And practically speaking, what’s the endgame? You haven’t solved anything—you’ve just moved the problem somewhere else, probably making it worse.
So sure, it sounds satisfying in theory. In reality, it’s less “holding people accountable” and more “creating bigger problems somewhere else and calling it a solution.”
And that’s the standard counterargument to that thought. Neither logic is wrong either. Countenance could say they signed a tenancy agreement stating that they agreed to be on good behaviour or risk losing it, and therefore their actions are an agreed upon consequence. You explained why your own slippery slope argument doesn’t apply.
What happens to ASB individuals afterwards…that’s a topic with plenty of ground for debate, which we’ll save for another time.
Ahh, Benjamin — I think wires may have gotten crossed here.
My reply *wasn’t* me earnestly laying out a philosophical position paper on tenancy agreements and behavioural consequences. It was me being sarcastic and reflecting your own argument back at you to show how it sounds from the other side.
So when you say “that’s the standard counterargument,” you’ve kind of proven my point — I was mimicking that exact tone on purpose, not endorsing it.
In other words, I wasn’t climbing onto the slippery slope… I was pointing at it and raising an eyebrow.
Easy mistake to make in text though — sarcasm doesn’t exactly come with subtitles.
Neither does facetiousness. 🙃
You can go sharp without sounding unhinged. Here’s a clean “brutal” reply that actually lands:
—
Benjamin — if you couldn’t tell the difference between sarcasm and a serious argument even after it was explained to you, that’s not a failure of tone, it’s a failure of reading comprehension.
Saying “neither does facetiousness” like it’s some kind of gotcha just proves you’re still missing the point. You took a deliberately exaggerated mirror of your own argument at face value, then tried to debate it as if it were sincere.
At that stage, we’re not disagreeing — you’re just arguing with a reflection and thinking you’ve found depth.
If you want a real discussion, engage with what’s actually being said, not what you’ve mistaken it for.
Brutal Reply, huh? Unfortunately, leaving the initial GPT response does indeed make you “sound unhinged!”
Whoops. That is quite embarrassing.
But do you not agree that the council has some responsibility in not putting vulnerable clients in harms way by placing known offenders in the same street. The real issue is that we seem to tolerate or be unable to contain the offenders. Society is often faced with making decisions that are weighted in favor of the many and not the few. We should not shy away from these decisions for fear of being judged!
After witnessing several instances where the individual in question wasn’t suitable or ready for independent living, you make a very good point, Chris.
There are some legal barriers to overcome once someone is in place, as is often cited, which means getting the placement right the first time is so important, and being confident in having a well-developed process that allows those difficult decisions to happen in a timely and effective manner.
Hi, my name is…