A Dublin family whose eviction from their council home is to proceed despite winning a landmark High Court challenge to the procedure which led to the eviction order have been awarded €40,000 in compensation.
The High Court had previously found the European Convention rights of Carol and Laurence Pullen, Clancarthy Road, Donnycarney, Dublin, had been substantially breached because Dublin City Council had failed to grant them an independent hearing into allegations against them.
Last December, Ms Justice Mary Irvine found the council had not complied with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 in its treatment of the Pullens. However, she also noted the court could not, because of a provision of the 2003 Act, grant an injunction restraining the eviction.
The case arose after the council in 2006 obtained an eviction notice against the Pullens under Section 62 of the 1966 Housing Act which allows an official to go to the District Court and say they have to be evicted for “good estate management”. The council alleged anti-social behaviour, a claim denied by the Pullens.
Under Section 62, the official does not have to give any other reason and there is no hearing into the facts. The family had denied anti-social behaviour and claimed they were in fact victims of attacks which drove them from their home.
Ms Justice Irvine said today she was making the award of €20,000 to each of the Pullens to compensate them “for all the effects of the wrongful breach of their convention rights” by the Council. The violation of the Pullens’ rights was substantial in nature, she said.
Despite the court’s finding the order for possession of their home was obtained by a procedure which breached their ECHR rights, the council had said it did not intend to give them a new hearing into the finding of anti social behaviour by them, she noted.
Ms Justice Irvine said the court must proceed on the assumption the plaintiffs were not guilty of anti social behaviour as that finding was made in breach of their rights. She further noted the council had said the court should proceed on the basis the Pullens will be evicted notwithstanding the court’s findings. In those circumstances, the council’s argument that the claim for damages was premature has no merit, she said.
She said the Pullens had suffered distress, anxiety, loss of reputation and, as a matter of probability, would experience even great upset, loss and damage in the future as they were to be evicted from their home and their future housing rights would be irreparably damged as a result of the finding of anti social behaviour.
The court had heard uncontested evidence that persons evicted for anti-social behaviour often spend long periods in bed and breakfast accommodation and ultimately become homeless, she said.
Noting Mr Pullen’s physical disabilities and Mrs Pullens’ susceptibility to depression and panic attacks, the judge added they were ill equipped to deal with homelessness. Even if they did not become homeless, they would have to spend length periods living in B&Bs which would curtail their enjoyment of life.
The court heard the Pullens moved into their house just before Christmas 2004 and following a number of complaints from neighbours, were served with an eviction notice in November 2006 issued by the District Court under the Section 62 procedure.
The complaints included that Ms Pullen was involved in verbal threats and intimidation of neighbours and their children. There were also allegations of intimidation, aggressive and threatening acts towards adults and children by Mr Pullen. The Pullens strongly denied the claims and said their own complaints to the council were not fairly dealt with.
They claimed they were subjected to ongoing victimisation from the time they moved in and were forced to leave the house when it was “thrashed” by vandals one evening when they were out. As a result, they said they had to sleep in a car for several weeks until they got emergency B&B accommodation. Their children went to live with Ms Pullens’ parents.
