The High Court has set aside South Dublin County Council’s refusal of a Polish couple’s 2018 application for social housing support, ruling that the council wrongly relied on a flat they had gifted to their son four years earlier.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons found that, under the Social Housing Assessment Regulations 2011, alternative accommodation had to be in a household member’s current ownership. The couple no longer owned the Polish flat when they applied in August 2018, so it was not available to them to occupy or sell. The council’s decision was therefore based on an error of law and an irrelevant consideration.
The couple had emigrated to Ireland in 2007 and lived in a one-bedroom apartment in Clondalkin. They paid €988 a month in rent at the time of their second application. They had bought the flat in Poland in 2005 and gifted it to their son in 2014. The judgment put its value at about €12,000; the son had spent an estimated €5,000 refurbishing it.
The council had rejected an earlier housing application in 2015, saying the gift meant the property could not assist the couple with their housing needs. It refused the 2018 application on the stated ground that, because they had gifted the property, they were not eligible to apply. In court, the council argued that the later decision repeated the 2015 refusal.
The judge rejected that argument. The 2018 application required the council to consider changed circumstances, and the court found the effect of the couple’s past ownership had been spent by then. The proceedings were brought within the time limit; the judge added that he would have extended time if necessary.
The court also found the council’s letter failed to give adequate reasons. It did not explain the legal basis for relying on past ownership or say when the couple might become eligible to apply.
The ruling does not establish that the couple qualify for social housing support. The judge said the decision addressed only whether their past ownership made them ineligible; the council may assess eligibility on other grounds and has yet to assess their housing need. The court ordered the 2018 decision quashed and the application remitted to the council for reconsideration. It dismissed the damages claim, finding no automatic entitlement to damages from an unlawful decision and no showing that the refusal was actionable or deprived the couple of support to which they were inevitably entitled. Costs and any further directions remained for counsel to address.