The High Court has quashed Dublin City Council’s refusal to grant a family priority for a housing transfer, finding that the council applied its Exceptional Social Grounds Scheme too narrowly. The court remitted the application to the council for reconsideration in light of the judgment. It did not itself award priority or order a transfer.
The applicants, a council tenant and family members, had sought to move from their home in Coolock, Dublin. They alleged repeated racist abuse, harassment and attacks in and around the home, and said the incidents had caused fear and affected the children’s school attendance. Those matters were allegations advanced in the proceedings; the judgment’s central ruling concerned how the council assessed the transfer application.
The family applied for priority under the scheme in August 2012, after two earlier transfer applications had been refused. The council refused the latest application in March 2013. Its Chief Welfare Officer later explained that the decision relied on reports and letters, including accounts of incidents reported to estate management. She said many incidents appeared to involve a person known to the family or to have occurred in public places, and that law-and-order incidents were generally for Gardaí and outside the scheme.
The court rejected the applicants’ arguments that the refusal failed to give adequate reasons, failed to take account of the evidence, or was disproportionate. It accepted that the Chief Welfare Officer had considered the essential complaints and said a brief explanation following a request for reasons was sufficient in the circumstances.
However, the court found that the officer had misunderstood the scheme’s scope. The council’s allocations rules provided for harassment and intimidation claims to be investigated by a Regional Housing Manager and considered for transfer on exceptional social grounds if that manager could not resolve the problem. The court said alleged harassment did not fall outside the scheme simply because Gardaí might also deal with unlawful incidents.
Because the officer treated those incidents as outside the scheme, she applied a test that was too narrow. The refusal therefore could not stand. The court quashed it and directed the council to reconsider the application in accordance with the judgment.