Should 'voluntarily homeless' tenants be removed from Mayo housing list?

Members of Mayo County Council have sought clarity over how the local authority should handle tenants removed from social housing and individuals with criminal convictions seeking accommodation.

The discussion, which took place during the last Housing SPC council meeting of the year, centred on whether those who lose their tenancies due to non-payment of rent, anti-social behaviour, or criminal convictions should be entitled to housing support if they subsequently present as homeless.

Cllr Peter Flynn raised concerns about what he described as voluntary homelessness, questioning whether policy changes have created new obligations for the council.

“Can I just get clarity at one point if a tenant doesn’t pay their rent right and we remove them from the property, or if there’s a situation with anti-social behaviour, or if there’s a situation where they get a conviction and they won’t meet the criteria,” Flynn said. “I go back to the town council days, we were never obligated to rehouse those people.”

Flynn argued strongly that individuals who ‘opt out’ through their behaviour should face consequences.

“If people decide to opt out and not pay the rent... if there’s serious anti-social behaviour, or if there’s convictions, particularly around sexual issues or drug issues, they should not be considered, in my view, for future housing and should not be considered as a homeless individual,” he stated.

However, Julianne Gavin, Head of Property at Mayo County Council, explained that the council’s hands are tied by legislation. “Any person who presents for homeless services is entitled to be assessed and assessed in line with the definition of homelessness in 1988 Housing Act,” Gavin told councillors. “We have to deal with them on a case by case basis. Sometimes there’s reasons why people have had these issues and why they have ended up out of their tenancies.”

Gavin emphasised that some individuals may require additional support services, including referral to the council’s Homeless Action Team or housing first support programs.

Cllr Michael Kilcoyne escalated the discussion by raising concerns about individuals with serious criminal convictions. “I’m aware that people can present themselves to their local area office and get back on the housing list, and in some cases, the council will give them accommodation,” Kilcoyne said. “These people include people that have convictions in relation to child sexual abuse, or in relation to drug abuse.”

Kilcoyne cited a specific case where neighbours were allegedly unaware of a housed individual’s conviction for child abuse.
“I understand the overall policy that’s been implemented, is that you can ban somebody from being on the housing list for five years, but if they’re homeless, you have to give them accommodation,” he explained.

He also noted that prison services regularly contact local authorities about releasing inmates who require accommodation.
Tom Gilligan, Director of Services, attempted to moderate the discussion by cautioning against seeking an unattainable ideal.

“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good,” Gilligan said. “I think we’re trying to find the perfect solution. We probably won’t find it.”

However, Flynn pushed back, expressing willingness to test any new policy through the courts if necessary. “We’re willing to go to court and have the court challenges if required,” he said. “If we’re going to put a new policy in place, we need to aspire to get one that sends a clear message, even if it isn’t bulletproof.”

The debate highlights the tension between statutory obligations under homelessness legislation and community safety concerns, an issue facing local authorities across Ireland as they navigate complex social housing challenges.

Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme