Act requiring council to give evidence in court not used in evictions

The 1997 Act allowing people to be evicted for anti-social behaviour is largely unused because it requires the local authority…

The 1997 Act allowing people to be evicted for anti-social behaviour is largely unused because it requires the local authority to give evidence in court, Dublin City Council has admitted.

Instead, the council uses the 1966 Housing Act, which regulates landlord-tenant relations and does not require any evidence to be given before eviction, when seeking to evict people.

The practice has been criticised by the tenants' rights organisation Threshold, which says that this policy does not solve the problem, but merely moves it on. "It affects households which are very chaotic in the first place," said a spokesman. "It can play havoc with a family if the children are moved out. It is only a short-term solution."

The issue arose again recently when one former Dublin City Council tenant, Noel Cahill, died of hypothermia following his eviction from a council house.

READ MORE

The 1997 Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was introduced to deal with the problem of drug-dealers in local authority estates, whose activities had a negative effect on the quality of life of their neighbours. It allowed the council to evict them for anti-social behaviour and was widely supported by tenants and the public. But, according to Threshold, it is rarely used, except as a threat.

This was confirmed by Mr John O'Connor, of the Housing Department of Dublin City Council. "The Act under which all evictions take place is essentially Section 62 of the 1966 Act," he said.

Asked why this, rather than the 1997 Act, was used, he said: "We don't have to give any evidence when we use the 1966 Act."

Mr O'Connor said that judges accepted that Dublin City Council acts in a bona fide fashion in this regard.

"In relation to rents, judges usually issue warrants, but with a three months' stay to allow for a settlement," he said. "It's a very different situation when drug-dealing is involved. Witnesses would not be happy coming forward. So we prefer not to use it. The 1966 Act gives us better protection, but it is somewhat unsatisfactory from the point of view of accountability."

Referring to the Noel Cahill eviction, he said: "These things are not taken lightly."