Mercy Law were contacted by a mother with an infant child who was experiencing homelessness but had been refused emergency accommodation by her local authority.

The Client had become homeless over a weekend due to a serious relationship breakdown and had nowhere she could reside with her infant child. Domestic violence orders prevented her from returning to her previous residence. The Client attended a local charity which provides emergency accommodation to persons experiencing homelessness. Despite her not being assessed as homeless by her Local Authority, this charity provided her with a room for her and her child for a night until the Council could complete her homeless assessment.

The Client attended her local authority on the Monday and requested a homeless assessment. On arriving at the Council offices she was orally informed that she was not entitled to emergency accommodation, that the local authority had no accommodation available, and that the only accommodation she had to offer would see her sharing with “heroin users and sex offenders”. Nonetheless, the Client persisted in seeking a homeless assessment and was instructed to return on Wednesday for an assessment. No interim emergency accommodation was offered, despite the local authority knowing that she was homeless with a small child.

The homelessness charity agreed to allow the Client and her child to reside in the homeless shelter until the outcome of the assessment. Without an assessment being completed, this charity was not receiving the normal payment for this placement and the Client’s household were not recorded in official homelessness statistics.

Homeless Assessment

When the Client attended their homeless assessment they provided proof of limited income and proof that they could not return to the previous address. This proof should be sufficient to prove homelessness within the meaning of the Housing Act 1988.

However, the Client reported feeling interrogated, with the assessor suggesting that she should sell her car or go live with a grandparent with whom she had not resided for several decades. Despite being homeless with a child for several days, the assessor told her that management needed to make a decision and to return the following day. Once again, no interim emergency accommodation was provided. The charity agreed again at their discretion to accommodate the family for another night.

On returning the following day, the Client was provided a short letter by the Council which included one line explaining their determination that the family was not homeless as the local authority had determined that she had financial resources to provide for her own accommodation. This directly conflicted with the household’s extremely limited means, and no explanation for this decision was provided in writing.

This failure to provide written reasons is in clear breach of the local authority’s legal obligations as laid down in Connelly v An Bord Pleanala [2018] IESC 31. MLRC is aware that this failure is not an oversight on the part of this local authority, but rather part of a pattern of continuous and concerted refusals to comply with legal obligations by this Council.

Orally, the Client was informed by a member of staff of the local authority that she should sell her car in order to pay for a B&B for a few nights. It was also intimated orally that she should simply return to her previous address or compel her elderly grandparent, living in an already overcrowded house, to allow her and her young child to reside there.

Appeal Decision

The Client submitted a written appeal seeking an overturn of the decision, explaining that she had no means to provide for her own accommodation and indicating that if she sold her car she would not be able to bring her daughter to creche. She also included a letter from her grandparent who explained that the house in which she resided was already overcrowded with other family members. Legal documents were also provided to confirm she could not return to her previous address.

The appeal decision was subsequently upheld with a pro-forma letter once again indicating that the local authority had determined that she had sufficient resources to provide for her own accommodation without any elaboration. The letter also stated that there was “no legal reason” why the applicant could not reside at her grandmother’s home. This is false as a matter of law. The inviolability of the dwelling means there would be no legal means for the Client to compel anyone to let her stay with them, which was evidenced by both a letter and court documents.

MLRC Engagement

The charity opted to continue to provide accommodation to the applicant despite her household not being assessed as homeless.

This charity contacted MLRC for assistance. MLRC met with the Client and a member of staff from the charity via videocall. MLRC provided legal advice to the Client and her advocate, advising them to lodge a final appeal to the Head of Housing. MLRC provided advice on the entitlements of the applicant, advised on the best evidence which may be available, and assisted with drafting the review request.

Outcome

The Head of Housing apologised to the charity and the Client, advising that the earlier decisions by the Homeless Section had been incorrect and should not have been made. However, despite a request for same interim emergency accommodation was not provided to this Client for the two weeks it took the Head of Housing to render his decision.

The Head of Housing indicated that the Council should have accepted the written letter from the relative as confirmation that the Client could not reside there. However, MLRC are aware that senior housing officers in this same local authority continue to refuse to accept such letters and in fact seek to require numerous affidavits from extended family indicating that homeless relatives cannot reside with them, without any lawful basis requiring the same.

In addition, the decision of the Head of Housing did not engage with the request for emergency accommodation at all. The Council indicated that they would now consider this household for a social housing tenancy, which has since been provided.

Challenges

The initial and appeal decisions by this local authority were on their face unlawful. They reflect a pattern of unlawful decisions by this same local authority which is resulting in families sleeping rough, couch surfing, or in some instances being encouraged to return to abusive home environments.

If not for the incredible forbearance shown by the homeless charity in this matter, this household would doubtless have fallen into this situation. The failure of the local authority to act quickly, render lawful decisions, or provide interim emergency accommodation while rendering their decisions amounted to clear breaches of the Client’s rights and their own public sector duty.

The pattern of unlawfully refusing to provide written reasons for decisions by this local authority inhibits applicants from understanding and vindicating their rights.

Disappointingly, it appears clear that the local authority knew that this household were experiencing homelessness. While the end result is positive the instability and breaches of fair procedures experienced by the Client are inexcusable. In refusing to complete a homeless assessment or place the Client in emergency accommodation, including after the final review by the Head of Housing, the local authority ensured that this family – who were clearly homeless – never featured in official homeless statistics.

This approach to families experiencing homelessness is part of a deeply concerning pattern. Without the Client’s tenacity and the support of the homeless charity, it seems unlikely that a positive result would have been achieved.