Arrow left dark
Newsletter icon SUBSCRIBE

High Court: Galway Council did not breach rights of family refused emergency accommodation

Clock icon Reading time: 5 minutes

A mother and her five children who were refused continued emergency accommodation, and whose application for housing was deferred for a one-year period, have been unsuccessful in applying for an order quashing the decisions of Galway County Council.

Image

About this case:

Finding that the applicants were not entitled to the reliefs sought, Ms Justice O’Regan was satisfied that the impugned decisions did not breach Constitutional or ECHR rights of the applicants; and that the offer of accommodation which was refused by the applicants represented the best within the Council’s resources to balance and facilitate the needs of the various applicants.

Background

The applicants, a single mother and her five children, members of the travelling community, applied to Galway County Council to be placed on its housing list in July 2010, and again in August 2011. In both applications, the mother indicated that she did not have a conviction in the previous five years.

The applicants were living in private rented accommodation, but in October 2016 received a notice of termination of the tenancy. In February 2017, the applicants presented as homeless seeking emergency accommodation.

Thereafter the applicants were accommodated with emergency accommodation by the Council which ended on the 3rd July 2017.

The Council stated that the applicants were prioritised; and in June 2017, were offered transitional accommodation at “T” Co. Galway, a four-bedroomed dwelling, being the only four bedroomed dwelling available to the Council. The Court noted that the youngest child has autism and other medical and intellectual problems for which he requires significant educational, developmental and medical supports; and that two further children also receive educational support for milder issues.

The applicants refused the offer of accommodation on the basis that a 5-day specialised placement for the youngest child with autism, was not available in T.

On 30th June 2017, the Council indicated that emergency accommodation for the applicants would cease on 3rd July 2017, on the basis that the applicants were in receipt of a reasonable offer of accommodation.

High Court

The applicants sought to quash two decisions of Galway County Council:

  1. The Council’s decision dated 3rd July 2017 refusing continued emergency accommodation to the applicants. It was asserted that this was an error in law, irrational, in breach of the applicants’ constitutional rights under Articles 40.1, 40.3, 42, and 42 A of the Irish Constitution as well as in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of the first Protocol to the Convention.

    1. The Council’s decision dated 28th June 2017, wherein the Council upheld deferring the applicants’ housing application for one year. The applicants asserted that the deferral matrix was unlawful, and that the decision was flawed in the same terms as the 3rd July decision.

      2. Furthermore, the applicants asserted that the Council failed:

      1. to assess their housing needs and the educational needs of the children;

      2. to apply s. 22 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009,

      3. to properly construe its powers under s. 10 of the Housing Act 1988 (referable to the decision of the 03/7/17)

      4. to have regard to the applicants’ constitutional rights and rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and thereby left the applicants exposed to the risk of being without shelter

      5. to accommodate the youngest applicant with his attendance at a specialised placement and thereby failed to protect his right to education as protected by Art. 42 of the Constitution, (and therefore acted inconsistently with its own criteria for withdrawal of emergency homeless accommodation).

      6. to have regard to the applicants’ family’s vulnerable status

        7. Refusing continued emergency accommodation

        Considering Meadows v. Minister for Justice and Ors 2 IR 701, Justice O’Regan accepted that, while regard must be had in the decision-making process, it was not for the Council to vindicate the constitutional rights and European Convention on Human Rights of the applicants.

        Justice O’Regan was satisfied that there was “ample scope” within s. 2 and/or s. 10 of the Housing Act 1988 for the Council to come to a decision, being satisfied that reasonable accommodation was offered to the applicants.

        The reasonableness of such accommodation had taken into account the housing and other needs of the applicants, so that the Council in such offer was thereby doing the best within its resources to balance and facilitate the needs identified by the various applicants to the best of its ability.

        As such, Justice O’Regan was satisfied that the applicants failed to establish that the decision to withdraw emergency accommodation on the 3rd July 2017 breached the jurisprudence contained in Meadows, or breached any of the asserted rights of the applicants.

        The decision was not irrational or unlawful in any manner so as to secure an order of certiorari.

        Housing List

        In considering the decision to defer the housing application for a one year period, Justice O’Regan was satisfied that the Council did have regard to the vulnerability of the applicant family, and did not fail to take into account relevant factors.

        Justice O’Regan was satisfied that:

        • Her conclusions on the decision to withdraw emergency accommodation applied equally to the decision to defer the housing application.

          • S. 14 (A) (II) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 enabled the Council to defer a housing application of an applicant including on grounds if the applicant fails to provide information to the respondent when asked to do so. The applicant was clearly asked about previous convictions, and failed to provide factual information about the same.

            • Regarding the deferral matrix, Justice O’Regan was satisfied that the scoring identified by the Council was made within jurisdiction with ample evidence available; and that the content of the matrix itself established that it was not an inflexible policy (Dunne v. Donoghue 2 IR 533 considered)

              • Refusing the relief claimed, Justice O’Regan held that the applicants failed to establish a right to an order quashing either decision.

              • by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News

                • Share icon
                Share this article: