Arrow left dark
Newsletter icon SUBSCRIBE

High Court: Council must reconsider woman’s application to sell ex-council house

Clock icon Reading time: 4 minutes

A woman who bought her home from the council in 2005 has been granted an order of certiorari quashing the decision of Meath County Council, which refused her permission to sell her home and relocate now that her children have grown up and moved out.

Image

About this case:

Directing the Council to reconsider the woman’s application, Mr Justice Max Barrett suggested that the decision was unreasonable on the particular facts of the case.

The Transfer Order

In 1990, Ms Bernadette Poleon and her infant daughter were housed by Meath County Council, acting in its guise as a housing authority.

In September, 2005, pursuant to the Housing (Sale of Houses) Regulations 1995 (S.I. No. 188 of 1995), Ms Poleon purchased the latter property from Meath County Council at a discounted price.

The Transfer Order whereby the property was transferred to Ms Poleon included the following obligation at clause 3:

“The following special conditions shall apply to the dwelling for a period of Twenty Years from the date of vesting of the dwelling…(b) the dwelling or any part thereof shall not, without the consent of the housing authority, be mortgaged, charged or alienated otherwise than by devise or operation of law.”

The 20-year period expires in 2025.

The Consent to Sale/Purchase Form.

Ms Poleon’s daughter is now an adult and living her own life away from home.

Ms Poleon has decided that she now wishes to sell her house and embark upon a new stage of her life which will involve her pursuing doctoral studies somewhere abroad. As part of this process of restructuring her life, Ms Poleon identified a buyer for her house and in early-2016 submitted to the County Council what is described on its face as a ‘Consent to Sale/Purchase’ form – which must be submitted to the Council as part of the process of obtaining consent.

In it Ms Poleon gave a standard-form undertaking that: “We the undersigned give up all rights to the house at and I hereby undertake not to re-apply to Meath County Council for housing assistance of any sort at any time in the future”, and confirmed that she has permanent accommodation arranged.1

Discussion

Justice Barrett cited Meadows v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform IESC 3, and considered three deficiencies as regards how the Council proceeded vis-à-vis Ms Poleon’s application:

  1. the Council’s decision fails when it comes to the critical link that ought to exist between reasons and reasonableness. The Council has been quite clear that it is concerned about Ms Poleon’s ongoing ability to house herself, so that the cost of same does not fall afresh on the taxpayer (an entirely reasonable concern). However, the Council has never explained why this concern now has the effect that the Council wishes to graft onto the post-20-year risk of re-housing that it effectively accepted in the transfer order of 2005, an additional 5 months to 10 years and 5 months. That reasoning offers no explanation as to why the Council wishes to graft onto the risk related to re-housing that arises under the transfer order an additional period that could extend to a period in excess of 10 years (and given that the consent is being sought pursuant to the order, it does not seem to the court that one can separate the order from the consent and say that here one is dealing with an unconnected matter; the decision as to consent falls to be made within the penumbra of the transfer order);

  2. in two respects, the Council’s pre-requisites as to consent are unreasonable. First, the Council seeks details as to Ms Poleon’s housing arrangements for the next 10-20 years. However, there is a big difference between 10 years and 20 years and there is no explanation offered for the remarkable expanse in time in respect of which detail is sought.

    3. Second, the court considers that it can properly take judicial notice of the fact that 10-20 year residential leases of privately owned properties are not available readily, if at all – a fact which has the result that Ms Poleon may well not be able to satisfy the pre-requisite as to future accommodation requirements that the Council is effectively seeking to impose;

  3. the reference to “adequate housing” in s.90(6)(b) of the Act of 1966 is not a reference to ‘permanent housing’ – yet the council conflates the two notions.

    4. Conclusion

    For the reasons aforesaid, the court:

    1. granted an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Council to refuse Ms Poleon consent to sale of her property;

    2. remit Ms Poleon’s application to the Council for consideration in light of the court’s judgment.

      • by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News

        • Share icon
        Share this article: