{"id":417989,"date":"2026-04-03T07:07:08","date_gmt":"2026-04-03T07:07:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/417989\/"},"modified":"2026-04-03T07:07:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-03T07:07:08","slug":"couple-cannot-pursue-challenge-over-refusal-to-include-car-parking-charges-in-hap-payment-the-irish-times","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/417989\/","title":{"rendered":"Couple cannot pursue challenge over refusal to include car-parking charges in Hap payment \u2013 The Irish Times"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">A couple are out of time to pursue a challenge over Dublin City Council\u2019s (DCC) refusal to include car parking and service charges in their Housing Assistance Payment (Hap), the Court of Appeal has ruled. <\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">The couple, now getting \u20ac1,644 per month in Hap, previously received about \u20ac1,950 on foot of a Hap application form, signed in 2020 by them and their landlord, which represented \u20ac1940.50 as the monthly rent, the Court of Appeal noted. <\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">The form itself stated rent \u201cexcludes bin (refuse) charges, management fees, utility bills or car-parking charges\u201d, said Judge Anthony M Collins when giving the three-judge court\u2019s judgment.<\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">On foot of the application, DCC approved a total Hap payment of \u20ac1,950, comprising \u20ac1,300, the maximum Hap for their family, and a maximum discretionary increase of \u20ac650. <\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">They were required to pay a weekly rent contribution of some \u20ac53 to Fingal County Council. <\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">The judge noted an October 2020 letting agreement between the couple and their landlord, under the heading \u201cRent\u201d, stated: \u201c\u20ac1,555.50 per calendar month, \u20ac300 car parking, \u20ac85 service charge, \u20ac1,940.50 Total.\u201d<\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">In November 2021, their landlord issued a rent review notice fixing their rent at \u20ac2,018 from late 2021. The man said he informed the council of that change and received no response.<\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">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 \u20ac1,491 for overpaid rent and charges.<\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">In April 2023, the landlord\u2019s agent emailed them, attaching a letter from DCC which stated the \u201cnew rent payment will be \u20ac1,644 monthly as we do not pay for parking &amp; service charge\u201d. <\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">The letter said DCC had paid \u20ac1,940.50 monthly since the tenancy began in November 2021, but the monthly payment then \u201cshould only have been \u20ac1,555.50\u201d and the \u201cprevious overpayment\u201d would be deducted from future payments for the tenancy.<\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">The agent informed the couple that the monthly rent was \u20ac2,018, less Hap of \u20ac1,674, 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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">On April 24th, 2023, DCC informed the couple their weekly differential rent contribution was \u20ac87.61 and they were to pay parking and service charges to the landlord monthly. <\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">They informed the landlord\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">Solicitors engaged by the couple on February 7th, 2024, wrote to DCC on February 12th seeking the legal basis for \u201ca change in their Hap payment\u201d. After further correspondence, judicial review proceedings were initiated in June 2024 seeking to quash the refusal to pay more than \u20ac1,644 Hap monthly.<\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">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. <\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">The CoA\u2019s reasons for doing so include periods of unexplained delay by the couple and a lack of detail about their financial circumstances beyond \u201cbare assertions\u201d about them having little money. <\/p>\n<p class=\"c-paragraph paywall \">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. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A couple are out of time to pursue a challenge over Dublin City Council\u2019s (DCC) refusal to include&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":417990,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[73],"tags":[79,21031,784,18,10410,10476,19,17,41275],"class_list":{"0":"post-417989","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-business","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-court-of-appeal","10":"tag-dublin-city-council","11":"tag-eire","12":"tag-fingal-county-council","13":"tag-high-court","14":"tag-ie","15":"tag-ireland","16":"tag-residential-tenancies-board-prtb"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ie\/116339516758677609","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417989","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=417989"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417989\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/417990"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=417989"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=417989"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=417989"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}