The High Court found that South Dublin County Council failed to deal within the statutory period with a married couple’s January 2019 application for social housing support. The judge said the application had to be addressed even though an earlier application remained unresolved. The court had not yet decided what relief to grant.
The applicants, identified only as V.H. and M.H., sought judicial review and an order of mandamus requiring the council to assess their application or issue a decision. They also sought damages. At the hearing’s outset, the court prohibited publication or broadcast of material that could identify them.
The couple said they had become homeless after their rented tenancy ended in March 2018. They described emergency accommodation and later staying with relatives, and supplied medical information about their health. Those circumstances were presented as part of their case; the judgment’s finding concerned the council’s duty to deal with the application, not their eligibility for housing support.
The council argued that the couple’s 2017 application was still under assessment and that its January 2018 letter had addressed it by asking for evidence of 52 weeks’ employment in Ireland. It also said it was awaiting clarification of national guidance on applications by non-Irish nationals. The applicants disputed that the earlier application remained open and said their 2019 application reflected changed circumstances.
The court interpreted the regulations as requiring a housing authority, once an application is properly completed, to make a decision to accept or refuse it within the applicable period. It found no rule barring a fresh application where circumstances had changed. The judge said the January 2018 letter appeared to defer a decision pending employment evidence or a reassessment of the criteria, rather than request information to verify facts stated in the application. The judgment did not determine the underlying eligibility question.
The judge concluded that the 2019 application was properly completed and that the council had breached Regulation 12 by failing to deal with it within the required period. The court rejected the council’s argument that the proceedings were an impermissible collateral challenge to its earlier handling of the 2017 application. It did not grant a final remedy in the judgment: the appropriate form of relief was left for discussion with counsel.