The High Court declared that South Dublin County Council acted unlawfully when it used section 20 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 to evict Peter Neville from a house in Tallaght. It refused to order his return to the property or require the council to provide him with other accommodation.
Mr Justice O’Neill found that the council and gardaí went to 90 Killinarden Estate on 26 November 2008 intending to proceed under section 20. A garda told Neville to leave under that provision while council staff secured the house. The judge rejected the council’s argument that the action was simply a peaceful re-entry by a property owner.
Section 20 allowed a garda to direct a person to leave a local authority house where the authority believed that person had engaged in anti-social behaviour and removal was necessary for good estate management. The judge found no evidence of behaviour meeting the Act’s definition. The only incident cited was Neville’s 2004 firearm offence, which was not shown to fall within that definition. The court held that the council had misapplied the statutory power and acted outside its authority.
The council had refused Neville’s application to succeed to the tenancy after his brother Patrick died in 2007. Under the council’s letting scheme, Neville had not established the required two years’ residence and rent assessment. The judgment found he was not entitled to the tenancy and became a trespasser after the council demanded possession. Although he had lived in the house for about a year, mostly without lawful entitlement, the judge was not satisfied that it qualified as his home for the purpose of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The judge also said that if Article 8 rights had applied, the council’s unlawful use of section 20 could not be justified. He observed that a valid section 20 eviction would require an opportunity to challenge the case and have proportionality considered. In this instance, Neville received no such opportunity before the eviction. Separately, the judge considered that the earlier tenancy decision and its review had given him an adequate opportunity to be heard on succession to the tenancy.
The court granted a declaration that the eviction under section 20 was unlawful and beyond the council’s powers. It denied the requested orders for reinstatement and alternative accommodation.