Travellers settle action to secure suitable caravan

An elderly Traveller couple in poor health living in a "temporary" decrepit caravan on a halting site for seven years have settled their legal action aimed at securing a centrally heated and plumbed caravan.

Under the settlement, the Supreme Court has been told, the couple's accommodation needs have been addressed to the satisfaction of all sides.

The action by Paddy and Bridget Doherty was the first case here where Travellers claimed a legal entitlement to be provided with more than a halting site.

The couple, both in their seventies and in poor health, live on Lynch's Lane halting site in Clondalkin in a caravan described as cold and damp, without indoor plumbing, toilet or shower facilities and only a basic electricity supply, meaning only one appliance can be used at a time.

South Dublin County Council and the State now face substantial legal costs arising from the proceedings, initiated more than a year ago. The Equality Authority had been joined to the case to assist the court on issues raised.

While the High Court last January refused to give the Dohertys an order directing the council to provide them with a centrally heated and plumbed caravan, Mr Justice Peter Charleton criticised the council for its delay in responding to their needs.

Arising from that delay, he directed the council and the State to pay 40 per cent of legal costs incurred by them from the date of the council's second offer of accommodation.

The judge said that while the council was attempting to do very good work on behalf of the Travelling community, it had fallen down in this instance.

It was "not impressive" that accommodation offered to the couple on a temporary basis had continued to be their place of residence for years or that two substantive offers of accommodation had been offered only after the couple took legal action, he said.

However, a "serious offer" had been made and should have been accepted. He also said there was no evidence that the council or State had acted out of prejudice against Travellers and much of the delay could be blamed on the burdens of administration and because the couple began to assert rights only after a health crisis. Mr Justice Charleton had ruled that the Dohertys were not being treated unequally to settled people by a particular accommodation offer made to them by the council of an apartment, pending a move in summer next year to a redeveloped caravan park at Lynch's Lane. There they will have the use of a caravan and a day house.

The judge found there was no absolute statutory right to opt, in all circumstances, for the Traveller way of life, involving caravan accommodation and to reject bricks and mortar. Nor was there a breach of their human rights in circumstances where a number of offers of housing had been made and the "best form" of halting site accommodation would be available in 18 months.

The Dohertys had argued they were entitled to orders directing that such a caravan be provided. They did not wish to live in an apartment as they had always lived a nomadic lifestyle alongside other Travellers and would be "fish out of water" in an apartment.

An appeal by the Dohertys against the High Court ruling was set for hearing before the Supreme Court yesterday while the council and State had cross-appealed against the High Court costs order.