Mr Justice Garrett Simons has ruled that Limerick City and County Council acted outside its powers when it excluded a Traveller family from consideration for the allocation of social housing for twelve months under Regulation 12.
He found the council had wrongly treated a surrendered tenancy as a second “refusal” of an offer.
The household had been living in emergency accommodation. In March 2023, they refused a first offer of a supported tenancy. A second offer followed in August.
The mother initially declined it because of fears over intimidation and anti-social behaviour in the area. She later accepted the offer and moved into the property in November.
Before they moved in, threatening graffiti was painted on the house. It was covered over, but the mother said similar graffiti reappeared. In late December, the dwelling was attacked twice. Windows were smashed at the front and rear. She reported both incidents to Gardaí.
On 2 January 2024, she told a social worker she intended to surrender the tenancy. She was advised not to, but returned the keys that day. The council then imposed a twelve-month exclusion under Regulation 12 of the Social Housing Allocation Regulations 2011.
Mr Justice Simons said Regulation 12 only applies where a household refuses two reasonable offers. He said a refusal must occur at the allocation stage. A surrender happens later, after a tenancy has already been created. It cannot be reclassified as a refusal. The council conceded this point during the hearing.
The judge also granted an extension to bring the case. The family missed the three-month judicial review deadline, but he accepted that their living conditions, childcare demands, lack of legal knowledge, and difficulty obtaining legal help explained the delay.
He said refusing an extension would be disproportionate, especially where the council accepted the disqualification was unlawful.
Although the twelve-month ban expired in January 2025, the judge agreed to rule on its legality. He said the parties remain in an ongoing statutory relationship and the interpretation of Regulation 12 continues to matter.
The court rejected other claims, including allegations of discrimination, a quota system, constitutional breaches, and a challenge to a planning enforcement notice, or they were overtaken by events.
A claim for damages remains open.
A declaration will now issue confirming that the council acted unlawfully in imposing the twelve-month exclusion