In May 2003 the government published its consultation paper on Housing Benefit sanctions for anti-social behaviour (DWP, 2003). The proposals develop an idea first floated in the Housing Green Paper (DETR, 2000a). In 2002 Frank Field MP introduced a private member’s Bill to withdraw Housing Benefit from claimants engaged in persistent anti-social behaviour. The Bill was supported by the government, subject to the penalty being modelled on jobseekers’ sanctions (Wicks, 2002a). In January 2004 the government reluctantly backed down on its plans to use Housing Benefit sanctions to punish anti-social behaviour. Three quarters of respondents to a consultation were opposed to them, mainly on principle, but many also argued that the sanctions would be “unworkable, ineffective and counter-productive” (DWP, 2004, p 3). While respondents supported the need to tackle anti-social behaviour, “many were concerned that these proposals did not tackle the root causes and that early intervention across a range of services would be more effective” (DWP, 2004, p3). This article examines the arguments in support of Housing Benefit sanctions and the government’s motives for proposing them. Although now withdrawn, it is worth exploring why the government originally proposed them, not least because they resonate with New Labour’s ‘rights and responsibilities’ discourse. Housing Benefit sanctions can be seen as part of a wider government agenda to develop policy based on a “{welfare} contract between the citizen and the Government” (DSS, 1998, p 80).