Refusal of access to emergency accommodation
In 2022, MLRC saw a 250% increase in queries received related to refusal of access to emergency accommodation. Unfortunately, this trend continued into 2023 with a further 137% increase in such queries. These cases fall within the highest priority of all casework which reaches MLRC’s solicitors, requiring immediate engagement. A refusal by a local authority to provide a client with access to emergency accommodation creates serious risks of rough sleeping or pushes clients into hidden homelessness such as couch surfing. Individuals who are refused homeless assessments, deemed not to be homeless, or deemed homeless but not provided with emergency accommodation, do not feature in official homeless statistics. The increase in refusals of emergency accommodation involving families with children was a particularly concerning development in 2023. This challenge became particularly acute in the wake of the end of the eviction moratorium. Where reasons were provided for refusals of access to emergency accommodation, they were not always legally sound. MLRC engaged in a number of cases where local authorities refused to carry out homeless assessments until the clients were approved for social housing support – a process that can take up to twelve weeks or more and which is legally distinct from the provision of emergency homeless supports. Evidentiary barriers were sometimes erected, where a client would not be deemed homeless unless they provided a Notice to Quit which had been verified as legally compliant by a third-party organisation. This obviously raises serious challenges for persons facing illegal evictions or exiting informal tenancies or licenses, while also representing an externalisation of responsibilities by housing authorities. Our casework also involved refusals on the basis of a misapplication of guidance related to a person’s immigration status in Ireland, refusals by local authorities to engage with private accommodation providers where dedicated emergency accommodations were full, and refusals by reference to unwritten, unpublished policies by some local authorities which introduced additional barriers to access homeless services. Where advocacy and prelitigation correspondence did not result in local authorities reversing their decision, MLRC took High Court judicial review proceedings on these issues to vindicate the rights of our clients.
Case Study: 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, prelitigation 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.
