The High Court has rejected a family’s challenge to Killarney Town Council and Kerry County Council over their housing arrangements, refusing declarations and mandatory orders that would have required the councils to provide permanent housing or further information.
The judicial review concerned a family of five who were living in a one-bedroom chalet at Deerpark halting site while awaiting a house. The applicants, members of the Traveller community, had accepted the chalet in late 2004. Justice Michael Peart found that they understood it to be temporary accommodation pending allocation of a house.
The family argued that the chalet was overcrowded and unsuitable, that the councils had failed to implement their statutory duties, and that the delay and allocation process were unfair and discriminatory. They also sought information about when housing might be available and access to their housing file under freedom of information legislation. The councils denied discrimination and said allocations depended on assessed need, available accommodation and their letting priorities.
The judge found that the evidence did not establish that the councils had failed to take reasonable steps to implement the 2005–2008 Traveller Accommodation Programme. Under Killarney Town Council’s letting scheme, the applicants fell within the sixth and lowest preference category, though the time they had spent on the housing list could be considered. The court said the councils retained discretion to assess competing needs and allocate housing within available resources; it did not order a house to be allocated by a particular date.
The court also rejected the claims that the halting-site offer amounted to unlawful discrimination and that the applicants’ Convention rights had been breached. It found that halting-site accommodation was an additional option for Traveller families and that the applicants had accepted it voluntarily, while seeking a house for the longer term. The judge said the evidence did not show that they had been left in unsuitable conditions without justification or that the councils had refused to allocate a house.
The judge accepted the applicants’ criticism that the council had failed to tell them that a replacement chalet offered in October 2007 was no longer available. At the hearing, the applicants accepted offers of a replacement one-bedroom unit and an additional two-bedroom unit on a temporary basis, without giving up their wish for a house. The court expressed hope that the units would be provided without delay, but made no order requiring their installation.
The application was for judicial review of the councils’ housing decisions. The court refused the reliefs sought, including the requested declarations and orders of mandamus.