C v Galway County Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Ms. Justice O'Regan
• Judgment Date: 21 December 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 784
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [RECORD NO 2017 732 JR.]
• Date: 21 December 2017

[2017] IEHC 784

THE HIGH COURT

O'Regan J.

[RECORD NO 2017 732 JR.]

BETWEEN

C & ORS.

APPLICANT

AND

GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL

RESPONDENT

Housing - Refusal to grant emergency accommodation - S. 22 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2009 - European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 - Basic needs - Constitutional rights - Statutory rights - S .2 and s. 10 of the Housing Act, 1988

Facts: The applicants sought an order to quash the decisions of the respondent. One of the decisions pertained to the refusal of the respondent to continue emergency accommodation while the second decision was for deferring the applicants' application for housing for one year. The applicants contended that the respondent's decision was an error in law, irrational, and in breach of the applicants' constitutional rights. The applicants contended that the respondent had failed to assess the applicants' basic needs. The respondent contended that it had fulfilled all its duties towards the applicants and provided an offer for transitional accommodation, which was refused by the applicants.

Ms. Justice O'Regan refused to grant the desired relief to the applicants. The Court held that the applicants had not made a claim to support the contention that the decision breached the applicants' constitutional rights as asserted. The Court observed that the respondent had taken into account the needs of the applicants while providing the accommodation to them. The Court stated that it had no discretion to direct the respondent in the matters relating to providing housing facility to the applicants as the respondent was the best authority to decide on the utilisation of its resources. The Court pointed out that within the provisions of s. 2 and 10 of the Housing Act, 1988, there was ample scope for the respondent to come to such a decision that reasonable accommodation was provided to the applicants.

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice O'Regan delivered on the 21st day of December, 2017

Issues

1 The applicants, comprising an effective single mother and her five children, members of the travelling community, in these proceedings seek to quash two decisions of the defendant. Leave was afforded on the 23rd October, 2017.

2 In the statement of grounds of the 25th September, 2017, the applicants seek to quash the respondent's decision of the 3rd July, 2017 refusing continued emergency accommodation to the applicants which decision is asserted as being 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.

3 In addition the applicants seek to quash the decision of the respondent of the 28th June, 2017, a decision on appeal against the earlier decision of the 26th April, 2017. In that appeal decision the respondent upheld deferring the applicants' housing application for a one year period. In the statement of grounds the applicants assert that such a decision was similarly flawed to the decision of the 3rd July, 2017, and in addition the deferral matrix used by the respondent is asserted as being unlawful.

4 To support the applications it is further asserted that the respondent failed to assess the applicants' housing needs and the educational needs of the children (both applications). It is asserted that the respondent fettered its discretion in failing to apply s. 22 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2009, and in failing to properly construe its powers under s. 10 of the Housing Act 1988 (referable to the decision of the 03/7/17) and in failing to have regard to the applicants' constitutional rights and rights under the European Convention on Human Rights as incorporated into Ireland by the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 and thereby left the applicants exposed to the risk of being without shelter (both applications).

5 The applicants assert that by withdrawing emergency accommodation, the respondent failed to accommodate the youngest applicant with his attendance at a specialised placement and thereby failed to exercise its statutory functions compatible with the sixth named applicant's right to education as protected by Art. 42 of the Constitution, further, thereby acted inconsistently with its own criteria for withdrawal of emergency homeless accommodation. It is complained that the respondents did not have regard to the applicants' family's vulnerable status in either impugned decision.

Factual background

6 The first named applicant, then a mother of three children, first applied to the respondent to be placed on its housing list on the 27th July 2010. The applicants were placed on the housing list on or about the 16th September, 2010 and the first named applicant made a subsequent application for herself and her children by way of application of the 29th August, 2011. In both such applications the applicant indicated that in the previous five years she did not have a conviction for disorderly conduct in a public place. She identified O as an acceptable location.

7 By October 2016 the applicant then had five children and was up until that time living in private rented accommodation. She received a notice of termination of the tenancy and subsequently presented on the 1st February, 2017 as homeless seeking emergency accommodation. The applicants were so accommodated save for a brief period because of an altercation with third parties, at a hotel where the applicants were then staying following a risk assessment. Once the risk had abated the applicants were again furnished with emergency accommodation by the respondent which ultimately ended on the 3rd July, 2017. Ending on the 29th of November, 2016, the respondents had carried out four subsequent assessments following the initial assessment in or about July 2010, ending on the 29th of November, 2016.

8 The sixth named applicant has autism and other medical and intellectual problems for which he requires significant educational, developmental and medical supports. The third and fourth named applicants also receive educational support for milder issues.

9 On the 1st June, 2017, the respondent offered the applicants transitional accommodation at T Co. Galway, a four bedroomed dwelling, being the only four bedroomed dwelling available to the respondent. The respondent states that the applicant family was prioritised. On or about the 30th June, 2017, the applicant refused the offer of accommodation following inquiries and on the basis that there was no similar placement for the sixth named applicant available in T to that available in Galway, being a 5 day specialised placement. By letter of 30th June, 2017, the respondent 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. The applicants have been living at an undisclosed location since the 3rd July, 2017.

Emergency accommodation

10 In the statement of opposition of the 21st of November, 2017, the respondent asserts that

a. by making the premises in T available by offer of the 1st June, 2017 the defendant fulfilled its duties to the applicants.

b. that the respondent had, contrary to the assertion by the applicants that the respondent failed to have regard to the applicants' circumstances, made four reassessments of the applicants' situation, the last such reassessment on the 29th November, 2016.

c. the respondent states that it was pursuing legitimate policy considerations and the orderly administration of its functions.

d. the respondent asserts that s. 22 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2009, does not in fact deal with emergency accommodation but rather is concerned with persons on a...