Travellers refused order for new caravan

In the first case here where Travellers claimed a legal entitlement to be provided with more than a halting site, the High Court has refused an elderly Traveller couple in poor health who are living in a decrepit caravan a court order directing South Dublin County Council to provide them with a centrally heated and plumbed caravan.

Mr Justice Peter Charleton ruled that Paddy and Bridget Doherty, who have been living in "temporary accommodation" in a caravan at Lynch's Lane halting site in Clondalkin for some seven years, are not being treated unequally to settled people by being offered apartment accommodation pending a move in summer 2008 to a redeveloped caravan park at Lynch's Lane where they will have the use of a caravan and a day house.

The couple had sought a centrally heated and properly plumbed mobile home but the judge found there is no absolute statutory right to opt in all circumstances for the Traveller way of life, involving caravan accommodation, and to reject bricks and mortar. Nor was there a breach of their human rights in circumstances where a number of offers of housing had been made and the "best form" of halting site accommodation would be available in 18 months' time.

In asserting their right to nomadic accommodation, the couple were being met with an answer by the council that "a symbolic vestige" of their tradition may be preserved in the form of a site for their caravan with a day house after a reasonable interval of time to allow redevelopment.

Mr and Mrs Doherty, both aged in their 70s, and in poor health, live in a caravan which is cold and damp, without indoor plumbing or toilet and shower facilities, and only a basic electricity supply, meaning only one appliance can be used at a time. Mrs Doherty has a serious chest condition requiring use of an electric nebuliser at home 16 hours daily. The couple sleep in the sitting room of the caravan in an effort to keep warm.

An occupational therapist told the council in April 2005 that, as Mrs Doherty was under serious stress because of her living conditions, the caravan should ideally be replaced with a newer model with double glazing, central heating and indoor sanitation.

In proceedings against the council and State, supported by the Equality Authority, the Dohertys had argued they were entitled, under the Housing Acts, Equal Status Acts and European Convention on Human Rights Act, to orders directing that such a caravan be provided. They said they did not wish to live in apartment accommodation as they had always lived a nomadic lifestyle in caravans and alongside other Travellers and would be like "fish out of water" in an apartment.

In his reserved judgment, Mr Justice Charleton found the relevant provisions of the Housing Acts mean that once there is accommodation available which a homeless person can reasonably occupy, the state of homelessness ends. The Dohertys were deemed homeless given the condition of their caravan accommodation but, once a reasonable offer was made by the council, which the couple had chosen not to accept, their state of homelessness ended and the council had met its legal obligations.

While it would be desirable that the caravan park place would be available immediately, the council had obligations only in accordance with its resources and its scheme of priorities, he added. The council had a Traveller accommodation programme and, while it could no doubt do more, that was not an issue for the court.

However, he indicated that the delay in responding to the couple's needs may have an impact on his decision relating to costs of the action. It was "not impressive" that accommodation offered to the couple on a temporary basis had continued to be their place of residence for years or that two substantive offers of accommodation had been made only after the couple took legal action.

There was no evidence, however, that the council or State had acted out of prejudice against Travellers and much of the delay could be blamed on the burdens of administration and because the couple began to assert rights only after a health crisis, the judge added.

He will deal with the costs issue and other matters next Monday.