A High Court judge has dismissed an action by a man, which included an "incredible" €500,000 damages claim for "loss of goods", over the repossession of a council house where he had lived for some four years under a caretaker agreement.
Ms Justice Deirdre Murphy said she "has considerable sympathy" for the officials of Mayo County Council who have had to deal with Thomas McCormack, aged in his 60s, and who made "all reasonable efforts" to accommodate him.
Mr McCormack seems to be a man who is “extremely exercised by his ‘entitlements’ but appears to have scant regard for his responsibilities”, she said.
The council dealt with Mr McCormack “fairly, lawfully and appropriately” in relation to his accommodation and his personal property and any loss he may have sustained was “attributable to his own obstinacy” in not removing his personal property from the house at Parkview, Charlestown, Co Mayo, despite being given “ample opportunity” to do so, she held.
She also awarded costs against Mr McCormack, who represented himself and said his only source of income was his pension.
He disagreed with the judge’s findings and said he intended to appeal
The council repossessed the three-room house in January 2010 while Mr McCormack, who suffered serious injuries in a road accident in 2005, was in the UK getting health treatment, having left Ireland in November 2009 without leaving contact details.
The council visited the house in January 2010 due to fears that water pipes would burst following a severe cold spell and after having received a report of a break-in.
It had to force entry into the property, where it found no evidence of a break-in, but discovered a water leak.
The water and electricity were then switched off, the locks changed and the house boarded up for security and insurance reasons.
In his action, Mr McCormack claimed breach of his Constitutional rights and damages for alleged personal injury and loss of contents in the repossession.
Dismissal
Dismissing his claims, the judge said the council had informed Mr McCormack in 2008 and 2009 of a planned €2.2m refurbishment of some houses in the Parkview estate and made all reasonable efforts to accommodate him in light of that refurbishment.
She said that, in September 2009, the council offered to build him a demountable dwelling on his family lands outside Charlestown, which he declined.
Instead, he “rather arrogantly” suggested the council purchase a neighbouring property for him that he considered more suitable.
On his return from the UK in January 2010, he declined an alternative tenancy in other council accommodation in Charlestown.
In June 2010, through his then solicitor, he asked for a demountable dwelling to be built on his family lands, but, in August 2010, decided against it, she said.
She said it was also difficult to envisage how an “extensive” 18-page list of items he claimed were taken from the coal shed at the house in Parkview, where he said he had stored them, could be contained in a small three-room house.
She said that so many items, including a washing machine, tumble-dryer, four bikes, a side-car for a bike, three electric fences and a heater, were allegedly stored in the coal shed that “one can only wonder how he managed to access the washing machine to do his washing”.
She said that one small house could contain everything he claimed was “incredible” and the list contrasted with an earlier request on his behalf for the return of a washing machine and shelving.
