A high court decision has ruled that a teenager, whose mother tragically passed away unexpectedly, is not eligible to assume the lease of a housing charity flat previously rented by his mother. Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger dismissed a lawsuit from the boy, brought forward on his behalf by his maternal aunt, disputing the Clúid Housing Association’s decision to end the lease of the flat following the death of his mother in 2023, as children are not permitted to be tenants.
At the time of his mother’s death, the boy and his mother were the residents of the flat, while his father, despite playing a role in his life, resided elsewhere. After his mother’s passing, the boy moved in with his maternal grandparents but still frequently visited and spent time in the flat until Clúid pursued termination of the lease.
The legal guardian of the boy, his maternal aunt who resides near the flat, stated in a legal dispute that she would be willing to relocate to her late sister’s flat due to its proximity to her workplace and provide care for the boy there. She desired for him to continue residing in the apartment he referred to as home since the passing of his mother. However, the aunt did not disclose why her current dwelling would not be suitable for her nephew, but maintained the importance of allowing him to frequent his former home following his mother’s passing.
The aunt and grandmother believe that keeping the home intact is crucial for the boy, as losing it may be too much for him to handle. Supported by the aunt and grandparents, the boy sought declarations including that the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, barring the transfer of a lease to a child, violated his constitutionally granted right to equality. It was further alleged that this was a breach of the European Convention by not providing housing security for a tenant’s child and/or violating his rights to property and family life. The respondents, the Attorney General and Ireland, contested the challenge.
The presiding magistrate provided a ruling in which she clarified that section 39 of the Residential Tenancies Act details several instances when a residency can be assumed by an occupant at the time of the leaseholder’s demise. This encompasses the deceased’s spouse, civil partner, parents, or offspring who have reached the age of 18.
Upon interpretation, it is evident that an individual under 18 cannot attain entitlement to the tenancy, she clarified. However, once they turn 18, they may be granted the right to maintain their residence in the property, conditional on a legitimate adult agreeing to adopt the tenancy and permit their stay.
The magistrate dismissed the allegation, made on behalf of the minor, that the tenancy regulations violated a child’s constitutional rights, the integrity of residence, or the promise of legal equality.
She also dismissed the claim that the youngster’s article 8 – right to privacy and family life under the European Convention, was infringed. She deemed the reliance on article 8 as misappropriated.
She maintained that anyone under the age of 18, or a legal guardian representing them, does not hold the right, either as a child or a guardian, to continue residing in their late parent(s)’ leased home. This remains true even if the youngster can possibly secure such a right via other adult household members’ rights, she added.
The magistrate concluded that the minor failed to present adequate evidence that the relevant tenancy legislation is either unconstitutional or in contravention of the European Convention. Consequently, she rejected the appeal.