A couple from Rathgar, Dublin, who purchased a property for a hefty sum of €1.64 million, found themselves entwined in a complex legal strife over a car park space, despite distancing themselves from regulatory procedures, according to a High Court judge. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys identified the pair, Bronagh Hughes and Andrew Sinclair, noting that their predicament attracted court’s empathy, but underscored that it didn’t exempt them from pursuing correct legal procedures to address the issue.
Justice Humphreys dismissed their case and pointed out that the couple failed to satisfactorily scrutinise the planning irregularities relating to the property purchased in 2021, neither did they engage the services of a surveyor, nor properly check the approval status of the property’s actual state.
In an effort to challenge the legality of a decision by Dublin City Council, which deemed one of their two car spaces unauthorized, Hughes and Sinclair entered judicial review proceedings. The dispute revolved around a development comprising eight units, including their home, which originally had permission for only 12 car spaces — a total exceeded by one by the developer, Red Rock BPRKH Ltd.
A retention application was submitted by the developer for the extra parking space to the council, but it was declined. This directly impacted the parking space owned by Hughes and Sinclair.
They attempted to appeal the ruling to An Bord Pleanála, but were unsuccessful as the board concluded it couldn’t entertain an appeal that didn’t materially diverge from the initially granted permission for the entire development.
Although they refrained from challenging the board’s decision, they launched High Court proceedings in order to dispute the city council’s decision. The couple asserted that the decision was unreasonable and invalid due to the lack of their consent when the developer applied for retention which affected their property.
In opposition to the Hughes and Sinclair’s action, the city council claimed that the couple had not effectively pursued all possible appeal procedures and/or other administrative avenues before resorting to court.
Presiding over the case, Mr Justice Humphreys cast aside their claims, pointing to their lack of engagement in the process and their inaction against the board’s refusal of appeal. The council’s statement about the existence of at least four alternate solutions was accurate, he affirmed.
He described their claim of not being involved in the process, inclusive of the application for retention by the developer, due to their non-receipt of consent as nothing more than an excuse akin to “the dog-eating-my-homework”.
Mr Justice Humphreys further clarified that their negligence in utilising the accessible administrative resolutions disqualified them from obtaining relief through judicial review.
The judge revealed that any discrepancies in planning permission concerning the property are typically addressed during the conveyancing process, using a survey. In this situation, the developer had delivered a certificate of compliance with the planning permission, however, it appeared to have gone unchallenged or uninvestigated on behalf of the claimants.
Mr Justice Humphreys posed a question on why the development was certified as compliant, commenting it as one of the unresolved queries in this case. He also questioned why both the developer and their lawyers failed to notice the creation of documents for the sale of 13 spaces when the permission only allowed for 12.
Advice was given to Ms Hughes and Mr Sinclair to re-examine their options, provided they’ve not become too ingrained in their current, failing strategy. Some of these options may include filing a new application for retention, perhaps in collaboration with the developer, he suggested. Additional options may consist of complying with the permission, accepting the loss, and deciding to sell.