Case Studies
Case Study 1 – Refusal of Access to Emergency Accommodation
MLRC were contacted by a couple who had become homeless following a failed application to succeed the social housing tenancy of the father of one of the clients, who had passed away. The clients had become ill and, unable to source a private rental, faced homelessness following the return of the Council property.
During engagements with the homeless section, the clients were instructed to move into a B&B and informed that the local authority would begin funding the stay. However, after moving into the B&B the local authority changed their position, informing the clients that they operated an unwritten, unpublished policy of refusing to fund emergency accommodation in such circumstances.
MLRC immediately engaged with the local authority to clarify their responsibilities under the Housing Act 1988 and administrative law. When the local authority indicated that they would not adjust their position, pre-litigation correspondence issued and MLRC was granted leave to take judicial review by the High Court.
The local authority subsequently settled the case, agreeing to begin paying for the B&B and compensate the clients for monies already paid.
Case Study 2 - Challenging Administrative Decision Making
MLRC were contacted by a family who had been informed that they were to be suspended from all housing supports for a period of a year. The clients had moved out of a private rental property which was rented with the assistance of HAP, due to the property being flooded, and, according to the local authority, had provided insufficient notice of such a move. A suspension from housing supports, including a suspension from HAP, could have rendered this family homeless. The clients had requested an appeal of this decision and the local authority had upheld it.
MLRC were deeply concerned that there was no clear legal basis for such a broad suspension from all social housing services on foot of this supposed infraction. A Freedom of Information request was submitted for the family’s housing file and it became clear that neither the initial decision nor the appeal complied with the fair procedures rights of the clients, nor the administrative law responsibilities of the local authority, and did not appear to have a legal basis.
Following the issuing of pre-litigation correspondence the local authority resiled from their position, revoking the suspension.
Case Study 3
MLRC assisted a family who were unable to bring their baby who had serious medical issues, home from hospital due to their ongoing homelessness. We assisted the family with applying for medical priority and engaged extensively with the relevant local authority, highlighting that the complexity and severity of the medical needs involved meant private rentals or emergency accommodation were utterly unsuitable for the family. The local authority subsequently allocated a permanent home to the family. Providing a home for one’s family is a fundamental human need and we were delighted to be able to assist this family on this occasion.
Case Study 4
MLRC assisted a large migrant family with several children with complex medical needs facing homelessness due to eviction from private rented accommodation. One child was very ill, and at severe risk of infection. There is a scarcity of properties with sufficient bedrooms to house larger families. We engaged with homeless services and the housing section of the relevant local authority, clarifying their medical needs and the duties owed to them under law. In the end the family was allocated a permanent home.
Case Study 5
MLRC assisted a family who had their emergency accommodation placement ended when they went to Egypt for 2 weeks for a family funeral. Upon their return they were refused access to further emergency accommodation by the local authority on the grounds that private rented accommodation had been sourced for the family through a HAP Place Finder service. However, this property was still under construction and not habitable. The family were then forced to self-fund B&B accommodation.
CLIENT TESTIMONY:
“We were in hostels for 1 year and couldn’t find anyone that would help. The help we received from MLRC was brilliant, it was amazing, we were fighting just for something small (emergency accommodation) and ended in our own home. Paul was really helpful; I couldn’t think of where we would be without his help. I can’t thank Mercy Law enough, what they did for me was absolutely fantastic.”
Case Study 6
MLRC acted for a family who were refused access to social housing supports as they were assessed as being over the income threshold on a calculation of their preceding 12 months’ net average income, despite being under the income threshold at the time of applying. The family’s composition had changed and they were no longer entitled to the One Parent Family Payment. The family were also not deemed to be homeless by the local authority as they were not approved for social housing supports. MLRC raised the issue with the local authority and the Department of Housing and the issue received media attention. Clarification was received from the Department of Housing that a person does not need to be eligible for social housing to access homeless supports. Prior to litigation being issued, the family’s income averaged as being under the threshold and they were accepted onto the social housing list.
CLIENT TESTIMONY:
“Paul kept me in the loop on my case at all times. He got back to me whenever I called, at any hour, which I really appreciated at such a frustrating time. He was very professional. He really cared about this work, you could tell he was very committed to his work and did not just consider it his job. It was just really nice to have someone actually want to help me”.
“Mercy Law was recommended to me by a good friend of mine and I am very happy I got to work with Adam Boyle on a very difficult case of an unfair and unlawful 12 months suspension from all social housing services by one of the County Councils in Ireland.”
