Community Action Network
Placing People at the Heart of Change
Submission to Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the
Gaeltacht Re Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014. April 8th 2014
Introduction
This submission relates to measures in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014
which will have a bearing on anti-social behaviour on social housing estates. The submission is made
by Community Action Network on behalf of the Canal Communities Local Policing Forum.
Community Action Network (CAN) is a Community development NGO active in the South
Inner City for 25 years. One of the biggest challenges facing these communities is the threat to
Community Safety and much of the persistence of this threat is rooted in estate management on
public housing estates. CAN has been commissioned by the Canal Communities Local Policing
Forum to assist it in influencing policy relevant to this issue.
The Canal Communities Local Policing Forum, established under Section 36 of the Garda
Síochána Act 2005 is an integrated structure focused on making the communities within the Canals
Area of South Inner City Dublin - Rialto, Inchicore and Bluebell - safe. The Forum includes senior
Gardaí, Dublin City Council, representatives of other integrated structures (Drugs Task Force and
Canal Communities Partnership) community workers and local elected representatives. (See
appendix 1 for membership)
Within the canal communities are some of the largest social housing concentrations,
particularly flats complexes in the country, Dolphin House, Fatima Herberton, Bernard Curtis House,
St Michael’s area Inchicore, Bluebell (Bernard Curtis House) and others. Community safety is a huge
issue in our communities. As well as housing maintenance, anti-social behaviour is a top issue for
residents of these estates1. We recognise that anti-social behaviour in our communities, often
connected to the drugs trade, is a function of the neglect which they have suffered over generations.
In many cases the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour are as much victims as those on whom they
inflict such misery. There is a need for both a Care and Control approach in tackling these issues.
The Forum has considered some serious blocks to making our communities safer which lie in
public policy and legislation. There are two relevant pieces of legislation in process at the moment.
The first and most significant is the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014 which is the
business of your committee. The second is the Private Residential Tenancies Act which is due before
the Seanad.
The Forum is aware that a submission has already been made on the Housing (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Bill 2014 by the Joint Policing Committee in August 2013 (See appendix two). The
1
For example, See Dolphin Decides, a regeneration related community survey for the prominence of antisocial behaviour as an issue. http://dolphinhouse.ie/download/pdf/dolphindecides1.pdf
1
measures proposed by the JPC were considered by the Policing Forum on Thursday 27th March 2014.
From this meeting, the Forum is making the following proposals for consideration in legislation
relevant to community safety and estate management.
Peter Dorman
Community action Network April 2014
2
Proposals
1. That the anomaly between Section 62 of the Housing Bill 1964 and the European
Convention of Human Rights, centring on the Donegan V Dublin City Council Case in 2008
be rectified without delay.
We welcome the intention of the Government to rectify this anomaly. We believe that defendants
should have the right to have their case examined in the District Court. We are also concerned that
the anomaly has in fact hamstrung Local Authorities from effectively sanctioning anti-social
behaviour (ASB).
Fig 1 below illustrates how the Donegan V Dublin City Council in 2008 came to impact on Council
actions in the following years2.
Fig 1
Evictions
Exclusion
Orders
2007
10
5
2008
15
19
2009
12
15
2010
3
8
2011
1
6
2012
1
2
While we see eviction as a last resort, there are some cases where this sanction is the only option to
tackle ASB. Often, it is important to remove offenders from a specific community where their local
networks facilitate their behaviour.
We are concerned however that this measure may not become effective for a number of years as
this legislation may take that long to move through the Houses of the Oireachtas. We believe that it
is a matter of considerable urgency that Local Authorities are enabled to pursue evictions in line with
Human Rights law.
2. That a Dedicated Court is needed to expedite housing issues.
In addition to empowering district courts to hear the merits of cases, we believe that some means to
expedite court procedures relating to housing is required. In the past in Dublin, there was a weekly
court sitting focused on Housing matters. The same judge presided and s/he came to know the cases
and the parties very well. We believe that a Community Court, sitting regularly on Estate
Management issues, would be the most effective means of tackling ASB in terms of court
procedures.
3. That there is recognition of the role of “soft Intelligence” in pursuing ASB cases.
Community safety is of most concern to the residents of the estates where it is threatened. Very
often local people know much more about what the patterns of ASB are on their estate than the
Council or the Gardai. We believe that there should be some role for this “soft intelligence” in
tackling ASB through statutory procedures. We fully recognise that this could be open to abuse and
2
Source: Dublin City Council, submission of Joint Policing Committee to Department of Environment
Community and Local Government August 2013
3
cannot be the sole evidence, but we believe it should be open to Gardai and the Council to cite “soft
intelligence” in their processes in support of harder evidence.
4. That the mechanism for securing and executing exclusion orders be streamlined.
Exclusion orders are a vital tool in tackling ASB but have a maximum life of three years. They also
keep running even if the offender is in prison. We propose that some provision is made that an order
can be re-evoked rather than the process having to be re-started where a person repeats their
offending behaviour.
We support the provision in the Bill to allow Gardai to have act on a breach of an exclusion order
without recourse to the Council for complaint.
5. That the understanding of the word “vicinity” in the definition of ASB is widened.
It is frustrating when an offender can be called in for ASB around their own dwelling, but not if they
are engaging in the same behaviour in a neighbouring estate. The definition of Anti-Social Behaviour
is provided for in the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997, as amended. The word ‘vicinity’
in this definition should have the meaning of covering any location within the functional area of the
relevant Local Authority.
6. That a probationary period should be introduced for all new tenancies.
Most ASB shows itself early in the life of a tenancy. We propose that some reasonable terms are
included in the Bill for a probationary period focusing on ASB offences. Consideration should also be
given for tenancy training for new tenants, such as has become practice in regeneration schemes.
7. That legislation relevant to ASB in Local Authority estates and estates managed by
Approved Housing Bodies be aligned.
It is a feature of public housing provision that Approved Housing Bodies are playing an increasing
role in social housing. It would be very unfortunate if measures thought necessary to promote
community safety did not also apply to these bodies. Either such bodies should be required and
empowered to implement such measures or the Local Authority should retain the right to
implement them for their tenants.
8. That measures to address ASB arising from privately owned and privately rented homes
should be devised and implemented.
We welcome the measures proposed in this bill to consider ASB when making any State payments
for accommodation to tenants or landlords. We also note that the Private Residential Tenancies Act
will make some changes allowing ASB to come under the prevue of the Private Residential Tenancies
Board (PRTB). However, we wish to use this opportunity to raise our concern about the capacity of
the PRTB to effect measures to curb ASB in private tenancies.
We urge consideration of placing conditions on the sale and re-sale of Local Authority properties to
people with a record of ASB.
4
9. That there is a requirement to refer ASB from children to relevant integrated bodies.
As we said at the outset, we are of the view that the fact that ASB is so widespread in low income
social housing estates is a function ultimately of inequality in our society. While clear boundaries are
required to keep people safe, we know that many perpetrators, especially children are also victims
and need intensive support. In our Canals Community in recent years Family Welfare Initiatives,
interagency forums working under clear guidelines, look together at cases of vulnerable families and
decide on action to intervene. We propose that a certain level of ASB should trigger a referral to a
Family Welfare Initiative, or its equivalent. We are also concerned that proper supports are in place
following eviction to work for the rehabilitation of tenants.
5
Appendix 1
Membership of Canal Communities Local Policing Forum
Mr John Burns (Chair) Canal Communities Partnership (CCP)
Ms Ciara Faughnan (Administration) Canal Communities Local drugs Task Force
Inspector Declan Downey Kilmainham Gardai
Sergeant Matt Boylan Kilmainham Gardai
Sergeant Seamus Magee Kilmainham Gardai
Cllr Criona Ni Dhalaigh Dublin City Council
Mr Donal Russell Dublin City Council
Mt Gerry O Donoghue Dublin City Council
Mr Joe Donohue Fatima Groups United
Ms Violet Doohan, F2 Centre
Ms Eadaoin Ni Chleirigh St Michael’s Regeneration Board
Ms Lyndsey Anderson St Michael’s Regeneration Board
Ms Ailish Comerford St Michael’s Family Resource Centre
Mr Thomas Coombes, CCP and Bluebell Community Development Project
Mr Phillip Nolan Bluebell Community Development Project
Ms Valerie Reeves CCP and Bluebell Community Development Project
Mr Manus Bree, Barnardos, Dolphin House Regeneration Board
Ms Debbie Mulhall, Dolphin House Alliance
Ms Debbie Lynch Rialto Network
Ms Attinuke Diya Rialto Network
6
Appendix 2
Summary of Submission to Minister Phil Hogan made by Dublin’s Joint Policing Commission
August 2013.
Draft Recommendations that Dublin City Joint Policing Committee considers should be included in the
proposed new Housing Bill to deal with the Declaration of Incompatibility of s.62 of the Housing Act 1966
with the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, and other Related Matters
1. Procedure for dealing with complaints of ASB








Interview the respondent (tenant) if reasonably possible
Carry out inquiries
Decide on appropriate action - particularly warnings, initially
Set out the Local Authority’s options to respondent (tenant) should behaviour continue
Straight to Excluding Order or NQ should behaviour be serious enough
Consider Excluding Order before NQ
Consider NQ
Internal review mechanism
2. Procedure for eviction

Provide for the Local Authority to serve a Notice of Intention on the tenant - this Notice
would state it is the intention of the Local Authority to apply to the District Court for (a)
Termination of Tenancy and (b) Warrant for Possession.

Provide for the District Court to hear the merits of the case, preferably by way of s.21
statement of evidence, and make a judgement. The Court can assess the proportionality
of the Local Authority’s action in response to the ASB, can take into account the steps the
Local Authority has taken to stop the behaviour, can gauge the response of the tenant to
warnings, and can assess the possible effects the ASB in question is having on the local
community.

Options open to the District Court :
(a) Terminate the Tenancy and grant an Order for Possession
(b) Grant an Excluding Order as an alternative
(c) Decide not to make an Order as it would not be reasonable in all the
circumstances of the case.
3. Excluding Order Provisions

Confirm that Excluding Orders will not be sought against minors.

Delete the provision making it mandatory to consult the HSE prior to applying for an
Excluding Order.

Allow the Local Authority to apply for an Excluding Order against a joint tenant

Provide that it is not necessary for a Garda to have received a complaint from either the
Local Authority or the tenant of the dwelling in question in order for the Garda to arrest
the respondent for breach of the Excluding Order.

In the event that the respondent does not appear in court, provide that he / she will have
been formally notified of the granting of the Excluding Order 7days after a copy has been
sent to him / her by the relevant Local Authority by registered post - if the registered letter
is returned undelivered then provide that it can be sent by ordinary prepaid post.
4. Clarification of ‘vicinity’
The definition of Anti-Social Behaviour is provided for in the Housing (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act 1997, as amended. The word ‘vicinity’ in this definition should have the
meaning of covering any location within the functional area of the relevant Local Authority.
7