Young Traveller couple to be placed on housing list after 14 month wait
A young Traveller couple have reached a settlement with their local authority after it refused to place them on the housing list 14 months ago as they were under 18. The case was settled outside the Equality Tribunal and will now see their names being placed on the housing list.
The couple was represented by Siobhán Cummiskey of the Irish Traveller Movement Independent Law Centre, who challenged the local authority's decision on the basis of indirect discrimination of the Traveller community subject to the Equal Status Act 2000-2008. Ms Cummiskey argued that the measure to omit them from the housing list particularly affected members of the Travelling community as they are more likely to marry when they are teenagers.
The Department of the Environment introduced the age restriction measure last year by way of a circular. However, this was outside the remit of the Housing Acts as this legislation does not provide for an age restriction, so the Department's measure was essentially ultra vires (beyond the legal power of the Department). Similarly, Bulletin readers may recall that a direction given by the Department, which said that only immigrants with a long-term residency stamp were entitled to apply for social housing, was also found to be ultra vires.
Siobhán Cummiskey said in an ITM Independent Law Centre press release that "We welcome the outcome of this case and call on the Department of the Environment to take immediate steps to eradicate the practice of excluding under 18 year olds from the housing list when they have demonstrated a housing need. We have encountered many young Travellers and their infants in dire living situations as a result of this policy, across many Local Authority areas. This case demonstrates the need for law and policy makers to take cognisance of the culture of Travellers and other ethnic minorities during the drafting process."
IHRC calls for urgent repeal of section 62 of the Housing Act in light of settlement
The Irish Human Rights Commission (IHRC) has settled a case concerning a local authority decision to evict a man with an intellectual disability. The IHRC provided legal assistance to the man in order to challenge in the High Court the local authority's decision to evict him. The District and Circuit Court repossession orders that had been issued against the man were also challenged. In a press release, the IHRC said that the settlement "will ensure the man is properly housed by the local authority rather than being made homeless."
The challenge examined the constitutionality of the legislation under which the local authority sought to evict him - section 62 of the Housing Act 1966, which allows summary eviction of local authority tenants in the District Court. This legislation had already been found to be incompatible with the State's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in Donegan v Dublin City Council, Ireland and the Attorney General. In that case, section 62 was found to be incompatible with Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, because the section 62 procedure does not provide for decision to terminate to be reviewed on its merits.
The IHRC claimed in the current case that the State had in fact a higher obligation towards the man in light of his disability and that it was imperative to ensure that his human rights were protected during the course of eviction proceedings.
Dr Maurice Manning, President of the IHRC said:
"I am delighted that the IHRC was in position to provide legal assistance to this individual to vindicate his human rights. The IHRC has repeatedly called for the repeal of the legal provision by which local authorities may summarily evict local authority tenants in the District Court. This legislation is still on the statute book despite clear judgments from the European Convention on Human Rights, and similar findings being made by our own High Court. This case demonstrates the very real risks that arise from summary evictions, a risk much increased by the present pressures on the civil legal aid system."
Click here to view more about the case in an IHRC press release.