18. When we consider a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not seen any signs that something has gone wrong.
19. Ms N told us, ‘Immediately I was aware that …. Housing Association were breaching my human rights, I wrote to the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland. I made an application to the Human Rights Commission which was refused. The Commission refused to take into account the fact that I had made harassment statements against two of the tenants who…Housing Association were protecting.’
20. In her application to NIHRC Ms N said, ‘Housing Association have been trying to throw me out of their property since 2019. The reason for their attempt to remove me is not clear to anyone, even PSNI. I have two harassment statements against residents, one of them is already in the Public Prosecutors Office’.
21. In its reply to Ms N NIHRC said, ‘We note that…Housing still has an ongoing inquiry into your case. Additionally, we note the involvement of NIPSO, who we note are the correct authority to be monitoring the actions…. We also add that all investigations undertaken by NIPSO are done through a human rights framework, this assures that human rights issues will be considered’.
22. After Ms N’s request for a review into the decision, NIHRC did a review and told her, ‘In accordance with the Northern Ireland Act 1998 Section 70(2) where a person applies to the Commission for assistance in relation to legal proceedings, the Commission may grant the application and (a)provide, or arrange for the provision of, legal advice; (b)arrange for the provision of legal representation; (c)provide any other assistance which it thinks appropriate.
On this occasion Commissioners noted and agreed with the advice provided to you by staff and concluded that this was appropriate under the circumstances. In reaching their decision Commissioners also noted that the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman is engaged in support of at least part of your complaint... No additional assistance was agreed, and the decision of Commissioners is final’.
23. Ms N referred us to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that explains the right to respect for your private and family life. This includes your home.
24. NIHRC has given us information included in a document called, ‘Review of staff decision’. In this document, NIHRC explains its review of the decision not to offer Ms N any help and explains how it considered Ms N’s request in relation to her human rights.
25. NIHRC says, ‘There is no express right to housing, or a particular form or category of housing, under the ECHR or its jurisprudence. However, matters concerning an individual’s home are often considered under Article 8’. This shows NIHRC recognises article 8 is a qualified right.
26. Qualified rights are rights which may be interfered with to protect the rights of another or the wider public interest. The Act says, ‘There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society’.
27. NIHRC consideration goes on to say, ‘While Article 8 is engaged in respect of housing issues, in particular the process by which someone is removed from their tenancy, it does not necessarily follow that there will be a breach of rights’.
28. NIHRC considered if it is reasonable to expect Ms N to deal with the issue without help. In this case, it says that Ms N had already been directed to other agencies for help. It adds, ‘[Ms N] has made a complaint to NIPSO and has been in contact with the Housing Rights Service. NIPSO were investigating part of her complaint at present. She advises that she will not approach a private solicitor and was seeking advice to take the matter to court herself’.
29. When NIHRC told Ms N of its decision it told her, ‘The Commission can only formally support a few legal cases per year. These will be cases where the outcome will have a wide or strategic impact; for example, where the outcome of the case is a change to legislation or will have relevance to a systemic issue of concern. Unless your own case is likely to have an impact such as that, the Commission is unlikely to become involved in it’.
30. We can see that NIHRC considered Ms N’s human rights when it looked at her request for help. It noted other agencies were giving her some level of help and it thought this was being done with her human rights in mind.
31. To check if NIHRC’s consideration was appropriate, we reviewed its ‘Code of Governance’. The Code confirms NIHRC may, ‘Give assistance to individuals who apply to it for help in relation to proceedings involving law or practice concerning the protection of human rights’.
32. The Code also explains how NIHRC (which it refers to as ‘the Commission’) gives consideration to decision making. It says, ‘The Commission will strive to reach decisions by consensus on points discussed at meetings. Consensus means that all Commissioners taking part in the discussion accept the proposed decision. If, after thorough discussion consensus is not reached the Chairperson will rule in favour of the majority view’.
33. We know Ms N’s complaint was discussed at a meeting on 27 September 2021 and a consensus was reached, in line with the Code.
34. To help NIHRC make a decision on the case, it considered this general criteria: • if the case raised a question of principle • if it would be unreasonable to expect the person to deal with the case without help because of its complexity, or because of the person’s position in relation to another person involved, or for some other reason • if there are other special circumstances which make it appropriate for the Commission to help • does the issue fall within the Commission’s Strategic Plan • does the case claim a violation or abuse which will significantly affect the protection of human rights • is another organisation better placed to help the applicant • will the case progress without the Commission’s support • has the Commission assisted another case raising the same point of law • does the case seem to have a reasonable chance of success • is it a strategic use of the Commission’s funds to help • is there any other action that is strategically appropriate for the Commission to take • is it practical for the Commission to take action in view of the time and resources available.
35. Because there is evidence that during the review of its decision NIHRC considered Ms N’s request with the above factors in mind and it acted in line with the Code by discussing the case in a meeting, we can see it acted in line with our Principles. These say organisations should follow their own policy and procedural guidance.
36. Our Principles also say, ‘In their decision making, [organisations]should have regard to the relevant legislation. Decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately. [Organisations] necessarily assess risks as part of taking decisions. They should, of course, spend public money with care and propriety. At the same time, when assessing risk, [organisations] should ensure that they operate fairly and reasonably’. NIHRC met these standards.
37. We have seen no signs of failings and will not take further action. We know Ms N is very upset by her housing situation and she feels she has been treated unfairly. We hope the information we have shared is clear and helpful to her.