Collection
Case Study: Council’s withdrawal of emergency accommodation was ‘inappropriate and unreasonable’
Published on
Last updated on
Published on
Last updated on
A family in Cork, who had become homeless, complained to the Ombudsman saying that Cork County Council was threatening to withdraw their emergency accommodation. The family of two adults and their children lived, worked and went to school in one area in Cork for around 10 years. Both parents were working and prior to the COVID pandemic, were not in receipt of any housing assistance. The family became homeless because their landlord had decided to end their lease and sell the property. As the family had become homeless, they were provided with emergency accommodation by Cork County Council.
Around two years earlier the family had been approved for social housing by the Council. The family had selected an area where both parents had worked and their children attended school for some time.
The Council offered the family a house some 40km from the area in which they had been living. The family believed they could not accept the offer due to the length and cost of their commute to work and school, and because of their ties to the community.
The family were told by the Council that if they did not accept the offer, they would lose their emergency accommodation and would be reported to TUSLA for putting the children at risk. The Council gave the family notice to leave emergency accommodation a week after the birth of an additional child.
The Ombudsman believed that it was unreasonable for the Council to withdraw their emergency accommodation because they rejected the offer of housing. The Ombudsman also said that the tone of the communications from the Council to the family was completely inappropriate, was far below the standard expected from a public body dealing with a family in need, and fell short of the Council’s Public Sector Duty in relation to human rights.
The Ombudsman was also unclear why the family were offered a property 40km from where they worked and attended school when there were properties soon to be available in that area. While the Ombudsman’s investigation was ongoing, the Council provided the family with details of a smaller property. However, given the number of children in the family, the property was not big enough to house them. The Council also added that it was not recommending the property. However, no other suitable property was available and the emergency accommodation, which the Council had agreed to temporarily extend at the request of this Office, was due to be withdrawn.
The Council also told the family that if they signed a lease for the property, they would not be allowed to break that lease for two years. This was not correct, as the legislation governing the relevant scheme provides that ‘overcrowding’ is a reason for a lease to be broken.
The Ombudsman said that it was completely inappropriate of the Council to provide the contact details for this property, while recommending that it not be accepted, and at the same time ending the emergency accommodation in place within a few weeks. The family felt they had no alternative but to accept the offer of the smaller property.
The Council apologised to the family for the tone of the communications and accepted that the family should be allowed to break the lease agreement given that the property they were living in was not suitable. The Council did not accept that its initial allocation offer was unreasonable. However, the Council provided further assistance to the family and located a suitable property closer to their employment and schools.