A mother, her partner and four children who have been living with four others in her three-bedroom childhood home for a year while waiting to be housed have challenged Dublin City Council’s refusal to grant them a “homeless priority” designation.
The council appears to have taken the unlawful view that, unless homeless people take up offers of emergency hostel, hotel or B&B accommodation, they did not get priority designation, Siobhan Phelan SC, for the family, said.
The woman has been on the council’s housing list since 2011, the court heard.
Mr Justice Seamus Noonan on Monday granted Ms Phelan's ex parte application for leave to take a judicial review challenge to the council's refusal to designate the family "homeless priority" on its housing list.
They claim that refusal is based on an error of law, is irrational and unreasonable and breaches their rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003.
Childhood home
Ms Phelan said her clients were what is known as a “blended” family, in that they comprise a mother with three children by a previous relationship and her current partner, with whom she has had another child.
She said the woman’s previous home in Dublin was sold, to the council, in early 2016 and the family had to leave there. Since then, they have been living on an ad hoc basis in the woman’s childhood home.
As a result of the family’s homelessness, there are now ten people in the childhood home, counsel said.
She said the mother went to the council in early 2016 seeking assistance in light of her then pending homelessness and had understood she was given homeless priority then. Because the house where she had been living had been sold to the council, she asked to be let remain there but that did not happen.
The mother was given conflicting accounts over the following months, including from her Freedom of Information requests, concerning the status of her homeless priority and was told in December 2016 she could not be regarded as a homeless priority.
As the woman had not accessed emergency accommodation but was rather “camping” in her childhood home, it appeared she was not considered a homeless priority, counsel said.
It was her case that the relevant legislation did not require people to access emergency services before they can get such priority.
Granting leave for judicial review of the council’s decision, the judge said the matter was of “some urgency” and returned it to March 14th.
