Challenging Administrative Decision Making
Simple access to services was a recurring challenge for the MLRC client base. The ongoing housing crisis has resulted in patterns of homelessness in local authority areas whose staff are unfamiliar with how best to respond to these needs. MLRC clients faced difficulties such as local authorities only carrying out homeless assessments during very limited hours on intermittent weekdays. This practice presents serious issues for clients who find themselves becoming homeless quite suddenly. In addition, MRLC became aware of a number of local authorities which had removed direct phonelines to their housing or homeless sections from their websites, or which refused to answer emails to same. Regrettably, a large number of clients who approached MLRC for legal advice or assistance also reported treatment by local authority housing staff which was rude, short, or lacked compassion and understanding for the experiences of these clients.
Case Study 1: 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 2: 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.
