Can a law be challenged

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Can a law be challenged and how would it be?


There are houses called part v houses https://www.housing.eolasmagazine.ie/part-v-overview/


In 2014 the HOUSING (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2014 excluded these from tenant purchase.


https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-09-06/1959/#pq-answers-1959_1969_1974_1986


says "Local authorities may also, within the provisions of the Regulations, exclude certain houses which, in the opinion of the authority, should not be sold for reasons such as proper stock or estate management. It is a matter for each individual local authority to administer the Scheme in its operational area in line with the over-arching provisions of the governing legislation for the scheme, and in a manner appropriate to its housing requirements."

Could this law be challenged and could thepower authority's power to refuse to sell based on their opinion be challenged? If so, on what basis might it be challenged?


I am not interested in themoralityor otherwise of the law or of changing it. I am just curious re the legal situation as I heard of someone not happy to be excluded from such a purchase

Peregrinus

There are two ways in which you can challenge a law.

One is to argue that it give effect to a bad or undesirable policy, and so should be changed. This is a political argument, essentially, and needs to be pursued by lobbying policymakers and legislators, seeking to get the law changed.

The other is to argue that it's unconstitutional - basically, that it's inconsistent with some provision of the Constitution and that the Oireachtsas has no power to make a law in these terms. This is a legal argument, and you pursue it through the courts. To pursue it you need to be adversely affected by the law in question - e.g. you're a tenant who is denied the right to purchase because of the law - and you have to be able to point to a particular provision or provisions in the Constitution that you say the law is not compatible with.

There is a third avenue open in this case, which is not to challenge the law but to challenge the opinion formed by the Council - arguing that, while the law allows the Council to form and act on its opinion, the Council is required to form its opinion properly - consider all the relevant matters, disregard irrelevant matters, act rationally, etc, etc. Again, you'd have to be adversely impacted by the opinion the Council has formed, you'd pursue this through the courts, and you'd have to have an argument for saying that the Council had formed its opinion improperly. "I really don't like it" and "it's very disadvantageous to me" are not arguments which will get you very far; you'll need more than that.

L1011

Its quite likely that if a challenge became solid to this that tenant purchase would just be withdrawn entirely - its not done in most countries; its a UK oddity we copied; and pretty much every political party except FF/FG are against it already.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are two ways in which you can challenge a law.

One is to argue that it give effect to a bad or undesirable policy, and so should be changed. This is a political argument, essentially, and needs to be pursued by lobbying policymakers and legislators, seeking to get the law changed.

The other is to argue that it's unconstitutional - basically, that it's inconsistent with some provision of the Constitution and that the Oireachtsas has no power to make a law in these terms. This is a legal argument, and you pursue it through the courts. To pursue it you need to be adversely affected by the law in question - e.g. you're a tenant who is denied the right to purchase because of the law - and you have to be able to point to a particular provision or provisions in the Constitution that you say the law is not compatible with.

There is a third avenue open in this case, which is not to challenge the law but to challenge the opinion formed by the Council - arguing that, while the law allows the Council to form and act on its opinion, the Council is required to form its opinion properly - consider all the relevant matters, disregard irrelevant matters, act rationally, etc, etc. Again, you'd have to be adversely impacted by the opinion the Council has formed, you'd pursue this through the courts, and you'd have to have an argument for saying that the Council had formed its opinion improperly. "I really don't like it" and "it's very disadvantageous to me" are not arguments which will get you very far; you'll need more than that.

What sort of arguments would work.? I cannot see any really. His problem is the large amount of rent he is paying which he considers is dead money and nothing to show for it. Is that the same as "very disadvantageous to me"

Great answer thanks, I was very puzzled about it

L1011

The rent is subsidised compared to market rent. If he wishes to own a property he can buy one at market price.

Peregrinus

Stephanie Salmon Playpen wrote: »

What sort of arguments would work.? I cannot see any really. His problem is the large amount of rent he is paying which he considers is dead money and nothing to show for it. Is that the same as "very disadvantageous to me"

The rent he pays is not "dead money"; he gets accommodation in return for it, which is valuable.

I get that he would prefer to buy rather than rent. That may be a reason why he is unhappy about the law, but it's not in itself an argument that the law is unconstitutional.

If he could argue that the law allows this group of people to purchase their local authority dwellings but not that group of people, and that there is no good reason for making this distinction, and that the distinction is arbitrary and invidious and therefore violates the constitutional guarantee of equalilty before the law, he might have the makings of a case there. But the truth is that there probably is a reason why particular properties are not capable of being purchased.

Basically, he has to not start from his dislike of the law, which is irrelevant to the question of its constitutionality. He has to start from what the Constitution says, and then construct an argument that the law is not consistent with the Constitution, and so it is beyond the power of the Oireachtas to make such a law.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Peregrinus wrote: »

The rent he pays is not "dead money"; he gets accommodation in return for it, which is valuable.

I get that he would prefer to buy rather than rent. That may be a reason why he is unhappy about the law, but it's not in itself an argument that the law is unconstitutional.

If he could argue that the law allows this group of people to purchase their local authority dwellings but not that group of people, and that there is no good reason for making this distinction, and that the distinction is arbitrary and invidious and therefore violates the constitutional guarantee of equalilty before the law, he might have the makings of a case there. But the truth is that there probably is a reason why particular properties are not capable of being purchased.

Basically, he has to not start from his dislike of the law, which is irrelevant to the question of its constitutionality. He has to start from what the Constitution says, and then construct an argument that the law is not consistent with the Constitution, and so it is beyond the power of the Oireachtas to make such a law.

my point was he sees it as dead money in that he cannot own or pass it on to anyone.. Isn't it dead money in the same sense you said, in the right of residence thread https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114014851&postcount=22 ,the man's maintaining the house would be dead money . Could you not also argue the man in the right of residence thread would get somnething for maintaining it, a nice home.


I think the reason is the council want to keep stock.

L1011

You get the house at a discounted, income-linked rent with a life tenancy. That's the return.

The tenant purchase scheme is an entirely optional scheme that the State can pull entirely at any time.