Couple cannot pursue challenge over refusal to include car-parking charges in Hap payment

Council believed Housing Assistance Payment form signed by landlord and couple had misrepresented rent amount – judge

The couple asked the landlord to cancel their car parking space but this was refused on grounds that the property was advertised and rented inclusive of the space. Photograph: Getty Images
The couple asked the landlord to cancel their car parking space but this was refused on grounds that the property was advertised and rented inclusive of the space. Photograph: Getty Images

A couple are out of time to pursue a challenge over Dublin City Council’s (DCC) refusal to include car parking and service charges in their Housing Assistance Payment (Hap), the Court of Appeal has ruled.

The couple, now getting €1,644 per month in Hap, previously received about €1,950 on foot of a Hap application form, signed in 2020 by them and their landlord, which represented €1940.50 as the monthly rent, the Court of Appeal noted.

The form itself stated rent “excludes bin (refuse) charges, management fees, utility bills or car-parking charges”, said Judge Anthony M Collins when giving the three-judge court’s judgment.

On foot of the application, DCC approved a total Hap payment of €1,950, comprising €1,300, the maximum Hap for their family, and a maximum discretionary increase of €650.

They were required to pay a weekly rent contribution of some €53 to Fingal County Council.

The judge noted an October 2020 letting agreement between the couple and their landlord, under the heading “Rent”, stated: “€1,555.50 per calendar month, €300 car parking, €85 service charge, €1,940.50 Total.”

In November 2021, their landlord issued a rent review notice fixing their rent at €2,018 from late 2021. The man said he informed the council of that change and received no response.

In May 2023, the couple applied to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) to challenge the validity of the notice. In January 2024, the RTB decided the notice was invalid and ordered the landlord to pay them about €1,491 for overpaid rent and charges.

In spring 2023, the couple corresponded with DCC seeking a Hap increase in line with the increased rent arising from the rent review. The judge said DCC then, for the first time, received a copy of the lease and took the view that the couple and the landlord had misrepresented the level of rent for the purposes of the Hap form.

In April 2023, the landlord’s agent emailed them, attaching a letter from DCC which stated the “new rent payment will be €1,644 monthly as we do not pay for parking & service charge”.

The letter said DCC had paid €1,940.50 monthly since the tenancy began in November 2021, but the monthly payment then “should only have been €1,555.50” and the “previous overpayment” would be deducted from future payments for the tenancy.

The agent informed the couple that the monthly rent was €2,018, less Hap of €1,674, meaning they had to pay the balance to the landlord monthly. They asked the landlord to cancel their car parking space but this was refused on grounds that the property was advertised and rented inclusive of the space.

On April 24th, 2023, DCC informed the couple their weekly differential rent contribution was €87.61 and they were to pay parking and service charges to the landlord monthly.

They informed the landlord’s agent three days later that they could not pay the charges. Fingal County Council was informed in June and July 2023 that they could not pay the charges.

Solicitors engaged by the couple on February 7th, 2024, wrote to DCC on February 12th seeking the legal basis for “a change in their Hap payment”. After further correspondence, judicial review proceedings were initiated in June 2024 seeking to quash the refusal to pay more than €1,644 Hap monthly.

In its recently published judgment, the CoA dismissed their appeal over the High Court refusing relief because the case was brought outside the applicable three-month time limit.

The CoA’s reasons for doing so include periods of unexplained delay by the couple and a lack of detail about their financial circumstances beyond “bare assertions” about them having little money.

Since it appeared their solicitor was prepared to act on a pro-bono basis, it was also unclear if their asserted shortage of money was in fact an obstacle to moving their judicial review, he said.

  • Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date

  • Sign up for push alerts to get the best breaking news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone

  • Listen to In The News podcast daily for a deep dive on the stories that matter

Mary Carolan

Mary Carolan

Mary Carolan is the Legal Affairs Correspondent of the Irish Times