The High Court has quashed Meath County Council’s refusal to let Bernadette Poleon sell a house she bought from the Council, and sent her application back for fresh consideration.
In a judgment delivered on 22 August 2017, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the Council had not adequately explained its reasons for requiring assurances about Ms Poleon’s future housing for 10 to 20 years. The court did not itself grant permission to sell.
Ms Poleon bought the County Meath property from the Council at a discounted price in September 2005. The transfer order required Council consent before sale or other transfer for 20 years, a period due to expire in 2025.
In early 2016, Ms Poleon applied for consent to sell, saying she planned to pursue doctoral studies abroad. She identified accommodation at a property owned by her brother, where he lived. The Council refused consent, saying the information did not establish that she would have adequate housing after the sale and citing a provision of the Housing Act 1966.
The Council later acknowledged that its officials had cited the wrong subsection. It said the intended legal basis was a different subsection that allowed refusal if a sale would leave the seller without adequate housing. The Council maintained that the mistaken citation did not affect the decision, and argued that Ms Poleon had not shown her future accommodation would be secure.
The judge noted that when the Council refused consent, nine years and seven months remained on the 20-year restriction. He said the Council had not explained why it sought assurances extending beyond the remaining period, with its request potentially adding more than 10 years to the period during which Ms Poleon’s housing arrangements were at issue. He also considered a requirement for a 10-to-20-year private residential lease unreasonable, noting such leases were not readily available, if at all.
The judgment said “adequate housing” was not the same as “permanent housing” and expressed concern that the Council’s correspondence appeared to conflate them. The court said its decision to quash the refusal was sufficiently supported by its findings about the unexplained timeframe and the lease requirement; it did not need to decide the separate concern about the proper purpose of the legislation.
The court also granted any necessary extension of time for the judicial review, observing that Ms Poleon acted once the Council’s legal basis became clear. It quashed the Council’s decision communicated in its letter of 30 May 2016 and remitted the application for reconsideration in light of the judgment. The Council remains to decide whether to grant consent.