Family has ‘nowhere to go’ because property is harming their health, court hears

Couple takes High Court action against Leitrim County Council challenging decision on homelessness

The couple said the family's health had been adversely affected due to dampness and mould in the house provided by the local authority
The couple said the family's health had been adversely affected due to dampness and mould in the house provided by the local authority

A couple and their five young children, who say they have nowhere to go because they can’t stay at a property that is harming their health, have launched High Court proceedings challenging Leitrim County Council’s decision that they are not homeless.

The action has been taken by Thomas and Louise Stokes who, with their five children, say they resided at a property in Mount Temple, Carrick-on-Shannon, Co Leitrim for several years.

They say that since they moved into the property five years ago, which was provided for them by the local authority, their health has been adversely affected due to dampness and mould in the house.

The mould was so bad they were forced to sleep downstairs rather than in the upstairs bedrooms of the property, they said.

READ SOME MORE

They complained about the problem to the local authority.

The council carried out some works to alleviate the problems, such as improving ventilation in the house and removing the mould. Those works were insufficient and the property was not fit for human habitation, the family says.

At one point the family decided to withhold paying rent to the council.

This resulted in the council bringing legal proceedings against them, seeking an order for possession of the property.

The family says that while they were in the property the problem with mould became so bad, and adversely affected their children’s health, that they left and temporarily resided with relatives.

They returned but the problems persisted and the council agreed to put the family on its housing transfer list.

Due to ongoing health problems the family left the property for a second time, and again went to live with family members.

That arrangement ended, however, and the family returned to the house having nowhere else to go.

This has had a detrimental effect on the family’s health, and resulted in the children being hospitalised, the family says.

After members of the family were again hospitalised with severe respiratory problems the family left the property for a third time.

They had been staying with another relative, in unsuitable conditions with all seven members of the family in a single room.

The family says they are homeless and require emergency accommodation.

They say that the council does not accept this and has failed to lawfully consider their requests for a social housing transfer.

The council has failed to take in account the mental health consequences of their residence at the property, they say, and the knock-on effects.

The family, who are members of the Irish Traveller community, has brought High Court judicial review proceedings against the council.

Represented by Nuala Egan SC the family seeks various orders and declarations from the court, including an order quashing the council’s decision that the family are not homeless within the mean of the 1998 Housing Act.

They also seek orders quashing the council’s refusal to agree to their request for a social housing transfer, and that they be provided with emergency family-appropriate accommodation that is fit for human habitation.

They further seek declarations including that the council’s decision that they are not homeless is irrational, unreasonable, disproportionate and in breach of the applicants’ Constitutional rights, rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, and the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.

They also seek damages for the alleged breaches of the rights and for the council’s breach of duty towards them.

The matter came before Mr Justice Garrett Simons during Monday’s vacation sitting of the High Court.

The judge, on an ex parte basis, granted the applicants permission to bring the action against the council.

The judge made the action returnable to a date later this month.