A DUBLIN family has won a landmark High Court action preventing their eviction from their council home over alleged antisocial behaviour on grounds of failure to grant them an independent hearing into the allegations against them.
Carol and Laurence Pullen, Cloncarthy Road, Donnycarney, Dublin, had denied antisocial behaviour and said they were victims of attacks which drove them from their home.
In 2006, Dublin City Council obtained an eviction notice against them 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 official does not have to give any other reason and there is no hearing into the facts under the section 62 procedure.
The use of section 62 to interfere with their right to respect for their home was carried out after an "in-house investigation" by the council in which the Pullens had no opportunity to dispute the lawfulness or proportionality of the eviction decision, Ms Justice Mary Irvine found.
The judge said the council's investigation into allegations against the Pullens of antisocial behaviour resulted in the council making findings of fact on disputed events and making judgments as to the credibility of the Pullens and their neighbours.
The judge ruled that the subsequent decision to evict interfered with their rights to respect for their private and family life and home under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and that the council was obliged to justify such an interference as being necessary in a democratic society.
She found the interference was disproportionate particularly as there was an alternative procedure to evict them available under the Conveyancing Act 1881 which would have safeguarded their rights by giving them a hearing and also met the council's aims, the judge ruled.
The council did not comply with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 and did not perform its functions in a manner compatible with the convention, the judge said.
She noted that, of the council's 26,000-strong housing stock, it received 2,500 complaints a year and had about 12 evictions for antisocial behaviour.
The High Court heard that the Pullens and their two children moved into their house just before Christmas 2004.
Following a number of complaints from neighbours, they were served with an eviction notice in November 2006 issued by the District Court under the section 62 (estate management) 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, who lost a leg in a traffic accident in 1995.
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 "trashed" one evening while they were out.
As a result, they said, they had to sleep in a car for several weeks until they got emergency bed and breakfast accommodation. Their children went to live with Ms Pullen's parents.
They unsuccessfully appealed the eviction notice to the Circuit Court which turned them down and they then initiated the High Court proceedings.
The Human Rights Commission, which was joined to the case as an assistant to the court on legal issues (amicus curiae), had argued that the Pullens had no opportunity to be heard and that the availability of judicial review proceedings did not comply with their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.