Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
—
ON FRIDAY, 18 February of this year, Dr David Duffy, the director of Property Industry Ireland sent a letter to Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Peter Burke.
Property Industry Ireland (PII) is an industry group that forms a part of Ibec – the employers’ lobby. Duffy was sending the minister their recently completed policy paper – ‘Proposals to reform the judicial review process in planning matters’.
This contained 15 recommendations for Government in relation to tackling the number of judicial reviews being taken over An Bord Pleanála (ABP) decisions.
Judicial reviews (JRs) are challenges taken to the High Court that question the legality of a public decision. The number of JRs taken in planning cases has shot up in recent years, with so-called fast-track planning laws being one of the main reasons due to being allowed to bypass local planning authorities and go straight to ABP for a decision.
“PII recognises the right to appeal planning decisions. However, the impact of judicial reviews on the supply of new homes is a critical issue that must be addressed,” Duffy said in his letter.
He welcomed the government’s plans to review JR laws, and said the high level of challenges was delaying the delivery of new homes, which added to the overall cost of building – “a cost that is usually borne by the first-time buyer”.
The letter and policy paper were also sent to John Shaw, assistant secretary general in the Department of the Taoiseach, and were released to Noteworthy under the Freedom of Information Act.
They are part of a wider construction industry-led push to change the laws around JRs, with the aim of making it more difficult for the legal challenges to be taken against planning decisions.
Over the past number of months, Noteworthy delved into the industry push for reform of the judicial review process as part of our project - THE CONSTRUCTION NETWORK - on lobbying by the construction industry. We can now reveal:
Back in July – as part of this investigation – we also wrote about how ‘deeply controversial’ last-minute planning law changes could lead to ‘years of litigation’. The full investigation can be read here.
—
Over 70,000 lobbying returns
We examined returns filed on the Register of Lobbying in order to get a picture of how often industry representatives are lobbying government officials, who they are lobbying, and what they are lobbying about.
Since 2015, under the Regulation of Lobbying Act, any person or organisation involved in lobbying has to register as a lobbyist with the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo) and file returns – which are publicly accessible – three times a year detailing their activities.
Lobbying is described by Sipo on its lobbying website as “an essential part of the democratic process” enabling “citizens and organisations to make their views on public policy and public services known to politicians and public servants”.
Since September 2015, over 70,800 lobbying returns have been filed by private companies, representative organisations, charities, civil society organisations and individuals across Irish society on a wide variety of subjects.
Ibec – which has a remit across various sectors of the economy – is by far the most frequent lobbyist in the country, with over 3,200 returns filed since 2015. This is followed by the Irish Farmers’ Association, with over 2,200 returns.
Construction industry analysis
For this investigation, Noteworthy focused on lobbying by the construction and property industries, as well as representative groups, public relations (PR) and consultancy firms working on behalf of construction or property companies.
We examined ‘Housing’ and ‘Development and Zoning’ lobbying records and focused solely on lobbying periods that fell within the timespan of the current government.
We also obtained – through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests – a number of documents, correspondence and minutes of meetings, particularly in relation to engagement on planning laws and Judicial Review.
The current government took office in June 2020, so we examined records from the periods ‘May to August 2020′ to ‘May to August 2022′.
In that time, a total of 984 returns were filed in relation to ‘Housing’, and 709 were filed in relation to ‘Development and Zoning’ – a total of almost 1,700 returns.
The most frequent lobbyists are large industry representative groups, housing or homelessness charities and public relations firms.
The Construction Industry Federation (CIF) – the industry representative group – filed the most returns over the past two years. Focus Ireland – the housing and homelessness charity – was next.
Lobbying by the construction industry was conducted by industry representatives, development companies, property investor firms and PR companies, with Q4PR and Pinnacle Public Affairs joining CIF and Ibec at the top of the list.
By far, the Designated Public Official (DPO) most frequently lobbied by these organisations is Housing Minister Darragh O’Brien, who has been lobbied 88 times, with his special adviser Kevin Dillon next highest – being lobbied 40 times.
Sinn Féin’s housing spokesperson Eoin Ó Broin was lobbied 38 times, with Minister of State at the Department of Housing Peter Burke lobbied 28 times and Maria Graham – assistant secretary of the Planning Division at the Department of Housing – lobbied 25 times.
Meetings between industry and councils
Lobbying by the construction industry takes many forms, including expressing industry views on upcoming laws or regulations as well as seeking to influence policy decisions.
But it can also involve engaging with officials at forums, roundtable discussions or just general updates on the sector. Housing provision is one of the principal issues facing the country so national and local government officials regularly seek industry views on the matter.
“The IHBA [Irish Home Builders Association] and the CIF are first and foremost a trade association for the industry,” said Conor O’Connell, director of the Irish Home Builders Association – a division of CIF – in relation to lobbying.
It is vital in any functioning democracy that the views of a wide range of stakeholders are understood at a political and regulatory level. We advocate on behalf of our members to a large range of bodies both public and private so that the business model and how the industry operates is fully understood.
For example, of the 88 returns filed by CIF over the past two years, 12 involve officials from Cork City and County Councils.
According to the minutes of nine meetings between CIF and the councils between 2021 and 2022 – released to Noteworthy via FOI – industry reps and council officials discussed issues including social and affordable housing, infrastructure developments, building costs, apartment viability and derelict sites.
This is just one of the many examples of the engagement between construction industry representatives and local authorities evident in the lobbying returns.
Fast-track housing a priority for lobbyists
Often, however, industry groups lobby for changes to laws and policies that they believe will benefit their members and say will also lead to lower costs and an increase in housing supply which would be of benefit to the consumer.
Both PII and CIF told Noteworthy that the construction and property industries are facing very serious challenges, which are impacting the supply of homes being built.
Speaking on RTÉ’s Prime Time last month, Conor O’Connell of CIF said that there would likely be a decline in the number of homes being built next year.
“The reports we’re getting at the moment from our members – homebuilders right around the country – is that there does seem as if there could be a decline in output,” O’Connell told Prime Time. “We are concerned about next year. There’s no doubt about it.”
Among many of the issues facing the industry, including the disruption from Brexit, Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine – which has reduced available labour and seen the cost of materials rise – CIF, PII and others also have issues with the delays in securing planning permission in Ireland.
Recently, the industry has expressed serious issue with the sharp rise in the number of judicial review cases being taken, and has lobbied strongly for the laws to be changed.
According to industry figures and planning consultants, JRs are delaying large infrastructure projects as well as blocking thousands of homes from being built.
A large number of JRs have to do with Strategic Housing Development (SHD) applications. SHD laws were introduced by the then-Fine Gael led government in 2017, with the aim of speeding up the planning process.
Under the legislation, large developments of over 100 units of accommodation, or over 200 units of student accommodation, could bypass local planning authorities and go straight to An Bord Pleanála (ABP) for a decision.
A 2019 academic study conducted by researchers from UCD and Queen’s University Belfast shows how the introduction of SHD laws were strongly lobbied for by industry figures.
The researchers – Mick Lennon and Richard Waldron – anonymously interviewed 39 different people involved in introducing the laws. The interviewees included high level members of property and real estate companies, developers, planners, planning consultants, civil servants and politicians.
The results of the research outlined the strategies employed by the industry and the intensive industry lobbying of the government to introduce the laws.
Speaking to the researchers, one member of Property Industry Ireland (PII) stated that Minister Simon Coveney contacted a colleague after hearing them speak about the fast-track planning system. He said:
And we met him four times over about six or seven weeks for, amazing actually, from eight o’clock at night until midnight. And he went through what his vision was for the Irish planning property system. And we gave him our recommendations and they took it lock, stock and barrel and stuck it into the new housing bill.
Rise in judicial reviews in recent years
As SHD developments bypassed the planning stage, the general public could not make submissions on the process before it reached An Bord Pleanála and could not appeal the final decision without going to the High Court seeking a judicial review (JR). As a result, more JRs were taken.
“By the time the public got to comment on it, all the decisions had been made and in fact, there was no mechanism for their contribution to be taken on board,” said Orla Hegarty, Assistant Professor at the School of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Policy at UCD.
“It was really just window dressing that people could comment on an SHD because it had all been designed and agreed with An Bord Pleanála at that stage, and there was no mechanism to change it.
“So clearly, excluding people from the process has escalated everything. And that’s why we’ve seen more judicial reviews.”
The figures back up this assessment. At the hearing before the Public Accounts Committee in July, then chairperson of An Bord Pleanála Dave Walsh was asked for the total number of successful JR cases taken against ABP decisions – where ABP lost or conceded.
In 2019, 55 JR cases were taken and 15 were lost or conceded by ABP. In 2020, 83 JR cases were taken and 32 were lost or conceded; in 2021, 95 cases were taken and 40 were lost or conceded.
These figures were included in a report on a review of the functions of ABP undertaken by the Office of the Planning Regulator (OPR), published last month. In it, the OPR stated: “It is clear that the number of legal challenges which are successful has increased exponentially in the last three years.”
It also noted that a reason for the increasing number of cases being taken has to do with allegations of ABP not adhering to local area plans or guidelines, and allowing for developments that go against conditions set down in those plans.
The High Court also found in a number of cases that a proper Environmental Impact Assessment had not been carried out, and so quashed ABP’s decision on that basis.
Strategic Housing Developments overturned
The figures above relate to all JRs being taken. When it comes to JRs being specifically in relation to SHD planning permissions, the numbers are more stark.
The same OPR report stated that many of the legal challenges since 2020 related to SHDs – a total of 97 JRs up to the end of June this year.
According to Fred Logue’s latest calculations, JRs that have been decided in relation to SHDs have had a 93% success rate – where ABP lost or conceded.
The government has since declared an end to SHDs, replacing them with Large Residential Development (LRD) laws instead. These laws will see a return to the local authority being the primary decision maker, with a view to reducing the number of successful legal challenges to development.
SHD applications were supposed to end entirely by the end of 2021, however this was extended into this year, and applications were still being lodged up until July.
A spokesperson for the Department of Housing said that as a result of the new laws it was “envisaged that the number of LRD decisions subject to judicial review will be substantially less than those in respect of SHD decisions”.
Environmental challenges
JRs are also taken by environmental organisations and NGOs against proposed developments that they believe breach EU environmental laws and directives.
One high profile case involved the heritage and environment charity An Taisce challenging ABP’s decision to grant permission for a multi-million euro proposed Glanbia cheese factory in Kilkenny.
The High Court challenge failed, and An Taisce ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court, but had its appeal dismissed earlier this year.
For proponents of the use of JRs, the high level of successful cases, or cases in which ABP concedes, show that SHD laws or planning decisions were flawed to begin with.
“The first thought that struck me is that this judicial review frenzy is basically a feature of the SHD system, not a general feature of the planning system,” said Fred Logue, a solicitor, who regularly takes JR cases on behalf of clients.
“And that the explosion of JRs has occurred because of particular features of SHD,” he added.
‘Worrying trends’ – industry response
However, the industry does not see it that way, instead focusing on the fact that permission is being regularly quashed by the courts for large scale developments of hundreds of homes on “minor technical issues”.
“I would find it hard to accept the word ‘success’ as a description of the overturning of thousands of planning permissions for much needed homes by the courts in circumstances where the expert decision makers [planners] have granted permission for homes on lands zoned for homes,” said Conor O’Connell, director of the Irish Home Builders Association, a division of CIF.
O’Connell said that lands zoned for housing have already gone through a lengthy public process and voting by councillors.
“Obviously legal challenges have arisen and the need for reform of the legislation and legal process is needed,” he said.
CIF’s position is echoed by other leading industry groups.
“The SHD process did significantly reduce the time taken for planning decisions. At the time the process was introduced there were long delays in getting planning permission,” David Duffy, Director of PII told Noteworthy.
Then and now there is a need to increase the delivery of new homes into the market – to increase supply. The further delays that have occurred are largely due to planning decisions being challenged, for the most part on legal or technical grounds – not on planning issues.
According to the Office of the Planning Regulator report, planning permission for housing developments has been overturned by the High Court for issues such as: ABP not properly justifying contravening a local area plan; the extent of car parking on a development – which went against SHD guidelines; the drawings submitted for a development being incomplete.
The industry position is that factors such as these should not result in the planning decision being overturned.
However, solicitor Fred Logue wholly rejects the idea that decisions are being overturned on “legal or technical grounds”.
“[Judicial reviews] are used to overturn unlawful decisions. That’s what a judicial review is, that’s what it does, and that’s what people [who take the cases] are doing,” he said, adding that the vast majority of concluded JRs have been successful, with ABP losing or conceding.
That means that those planning applications should never have been granted in the first place… You can’t lay it at the hand of the people who are just exercising their rights to bring a case to overturn an unlawful decision.
Lobbying by industry
Prior to PII’s letter and policy paper last February, the chair of PII, David O’Connor, sent a letter to the Minister Darragh O’Brien on 5 March 2021, emphasising “the urgency of a review of the existing system for Judicial Review (JR) of planning decisions and, in particular, worrying trends in recent months”.
The letter went on to say that it “might be tempting to blame the SHD legislation” on the increase in JRs, but that it had “nothing to do with that legislation”.
“Only one of the 25 successful challenges to an SHD decision relates to a unique feature of that code,” the letter states.
The Noteworthy investigative team obtained this PII policy document through FOI from the Department of Taoiseach but the Department of Housing refused to release it.
This was refused by the Department of Housing along with a number of other records that Noteworthy requested due to “deliberative process”. This reason is given when the records may be informing an upcoming decision like the creation of new laws, for example.
In addition, in one case, a separate letter that was refused by the Department of Housing had been released previously by the same Department under FOI, so Noteworthy requested a re-release of the record and obtained it that way.
In a separate letter in April 2021, Bartra – a large property investment company – wrote to An Taoiseach Micheál Martin concerning its plans to lodge a Strategic Housing Development (SHD) application for hundreds of homes at O’Devaney Gardens.
“I feel that it is absolutely inevitable that, no matter what we do and no matter what effort we put into our planning application, any decision by An Bord Pleanála under the Strategic Housing Development legislation will be judicially reviewed,” the letter states.
In my view, High Court judicial reviews are being used as a de facto way to appeal planning decisions and this cannot be the State’s intention.
Bartra also wrote to Minister Darragh O’Brien in December 2020, expressing frustration with the increasing number of JRs being taken.
The property firm that it “fully supported and endorsed” people’s rights to take cases against decisions which may breach domestic or EU law, or the terms of the Aarhus Convention, which gives people the right to access information about the environment and promotes public participation in decision-making.
“However, they must be balanced with the propensity for applicants to abuse the Judicial Review process and/or to treat the Judicial Review process as a mean of appealing and/or delaying the substance and implementation of planning decisions,” Bartra said.
However, Orla Hegarty said that the JRs were being taken as people had been excluded from the planning process by the SHD legislation, and that the courts were able to decide if there were grounds for the cases and if the law had been followed.
When Noteworthy put allegations of the process being abused to Hegarty, she said that “the courts are well able to throw it out if it’s abuse”.
Clearly, there are grounds if they accept the cases and the majority were found to be justified.
Judicial review ‘industry’
What’s more, the property and construction industries reference a growing “industry” around JRs.
In its letter in 2021, PII said that government plans and laws have as their primary goal the provision of housing, “yet JR challenges have evolved as an effective cottage industry to frustrate that provision”.
This “industry” is also referenced in research by planning consultants Tom Phillips + Associates. In the document, which informs the 15 recommendations from PII, the authors state: “It’s time to readdress the Judicial Review industry!”
CIF also references JRs being taken on grounds of “commercial interest” in a submission to government in October of last year, provided to Noteworthy by CIF.
The group said it supports the review of JR laws being undertaken by government. It laid out a number of recommendations to amend the laws.
The group also stated that there are cases in which “the commercial interests of the applicant are the main reason behind an application” and that laws should be introduced to “debar applicants in circumstances where it reasonable to deduce that the application is made on the grounds of a commercial interest”.
Planning experts and opposition politicians roundly reject the idea of an industry profiting off JR, and say that the high number of cases being taken is as a result of poor planning laws.
Fred Logue strongly refutes any suggestion of an “industry” around judicial review cases being taken, stating again that the vast majority of JR challenges have been successful.
But how can you say there’s an industry taking cases on small points when the vast majority of the cases actually succeed?
He said instead that “the problem is the board [ABP] making decisions that are unlawful” and that these “don’t comply with the requirements of proper planning and environmental protection”.
“An unlawful decision has to be removed,” he added.
Echoing of statements
Recent government statements echo some of the industry positions. Speaking on RTÉ’s News at One last January, Peter Burke announced planned changes to JRs, which would make it harder to take cases.
“We’re making the planning process more robust. We’re trying to tackle an industry that is growing,” he said.
It’s very important that we curb this industry.
Burke announced a number of changes to JRs, including a cap on costs for those taking cases, ensuring that anyone taking a JR had to have a “substantial interest” in the case, and altering the “automatic standing rights” for non-governmental organisations, such as charities or environmental groups, which would make it harder for them to take cases.
The changes are similar to ones contained in the General Scheme of the Housing and Planning and Development Bill 2019, published by the last government, which also sought to reduce the number of JRs being taken, but which was never progressed.
The Bill was met with strong criticism from NGOs and civil society organisations. Legal experts also said that it would likely break EU laws around access to justice. This included the Law Society who expressed their concern in January of this year, when it was asked to submit its views on the Bill:
The Society is concerned that the cumulative effect of the outlined changes will be to severely restrict access to justice, a right which is recognised as a fundamental personal right guaranteed under Article 40.3 of the Constitution as well as Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights].
However, Burke’s plans and the proposed laws are in alignment with many industry positions.
In its letter from December 2020, Bartra put forward a number of recommendations, including calling for those taking JRs to have a “sufficient interest” in the case, as well as recommendations over costs, also stating that planning authorities should “rigorously pursue the recovery of costs against the applicant” when a JR is unsuccessful.
PII in its policy report from February puts forward 15 recommendations. Among them, it also calls for “proportionate cost risk” for people taking a case, as well as a call to “raise the entry bar for making a challenge”, and that any applicant “must be able to show some connection to the area”.
Commenting on these recommendations, David Duffy told Noteworthy that the paper “recognises the right to undertake a judicial review of a planning decision”.
“The PII submission has been prepared with input from legal and planning professionals with significant experience in this area and we believe that the proposals put forward are both workable and consistent with EU law,” he said.
The aim of many of the recommendations in the PII paper are to make the planning decision making process more robust and reduce the very high overturn level of planning decisions in the courts, while also reducing the time it takes to go through the JR process.
In its submission, CIF also called for a requirement that JR applicants have a connection with the area, and that they must show how the development directly affects them and that they have made submissions at the earliest stage of the planning process.
Controversy over law amendments
Burke’s statements over a judicial review “industry” and the plans to amend the laws were met with some controversy, and the plans were temporarily shelved.
Our investigative team reported in July on an attempt by government to ram through “deeply controversial” changes to the laws around JRs before the Dáil’s summer recess. These changes sparked outrage from opposition politicians and NGOs.
Following the outrage, the government dropped the most controversial amendment, which would have allowed ABP to amend its decision after the judicial review process had started. However, more changes are coming down the line.
A full review of all of Ireland’s planning laws is currently being undertaken by the Attorney General, and is due to be concluded imminently, with a new consolidated planning bill set to be brought to government by the end of the year.
The bill will represent a massive overhaul of Ireland’s planning system. It will also contain changes to the laws around JRs, though it is unclear at this stage what these changes will be.
Recent government statements point towards changes that will restrict the number of JRs being taken. Speaking in Limerick last month, Minister O’Brien said:
We have a housing crisis that is resolvable and solvable, we need people to stop objecting, frankly.
He also said that he didn’t believe planning decisions should be made in the courts, as it’s “not the right place for them”.
“Planning decisions should be made in our local authorities and in An Bord Pleanála,” he said.
Minister for Public Expenditure Michael McGrath made similar comments in September at an industry conference, stating that the new planning bill would deal with JRs.
“It’s intended to reduce the legal risk of successful judicial reviews, that planning decisions should be made by our planning authorities, not by the courts, and the court should not in so many instances have grounds on which to overturn planning decisions,” he said.
Fred Logue rejected the statements that the courts are deciding planning decisions and said that “we actually have a very good quality court system”.
The courts “don’t decide planning applications”, he explained and said that’s “the one thing they actually don’t do and have never done”. Instead, “their job is to review the legality of the decision, procedural and substantive legality”.
The ‘key issue’
For local advocates and opposition politicians, focusing too much on JRs is a distraction to the main issue with homebuilding in Ireland – developments that have been granted planning permission, but where construction has yet to commence.
A recent analysis of large-scale housing developments by the Dublin Democratic Planning Alliance – an alliance of community groups and associations – found that planning permission for over 50,000 homes was granted, with no moves made as yet to build them.
These figures, first reported in the Business Post, did not include homes that were subject to legal challenges.
According to TD Cian O’Callaghan, housing spokesperson for the Social Democrats, planning permission being granted for developments that were “speculative” and “aren’t aimed at actually delivering homes” is the main issue with planning in Ireland.
This is “the key issue in terms of the planning process and delays in getting a quicker, more efficient planning system,” he told Noteworthy.
David Duffy of PII said that there were many reasons why developments that receive planning permission may not be built – including changing market conditions, certain conditions that need to be met, and a failure to secure funding.
“Homebuilders want to build houses. There is no evidence of significant hoarding of permissions,” he said.
Changes ‘could backfire’
Opposition politicians, planning experts, and NGOs disagree that changes to JRs will speed up the planning process, however. As well as this, some commentators state that government should not listen to industry in relation to any changes to laws.
“In terms of judicial reviews, we need to be very careful in terms of any changes that could backfire, like the previous changes backfired and could lead to more conflict, more delays,” said TD Cian O’Callaghan, housing spokesperson with the Social Democrats.
“And I definitely don’t think [the industry] are the right people to be… proposing further changes, given that the previous proposals they championed were so disastrous in terms of increasing the use of judicial reviews, conflicts, court cases and delays.”
David Duffy said, however, that SHDs “did significantly reduce the time taken for planning decisions” and that amending the laws would have solved any issues with SHDs.
“There were some deficiencies in the SHD legislation. These were capable of being addressed by legislative amendments, and PII did put forward proposals in this respect,” he said.
However, the government decided to replace SHDs with the new Large Scale Residential Developments (LRD) process, which may address some of the issues. This will significantly extend the time scale for decisions.
According to Orla Hegarty, many of the issues raised in JR cases were ones that could have been ironed out in pre-planning consultations and public participation, but as SHDs removed much of this, the issues got taken to the High Court.
“Things that might have been a €20 submission at the beginning and ironed out locally, suddenly turn to €50,000 in a High Court judicial review,” she said.
“So instead of going back to the strength of the previous system, now what they’re trying to do is say – let’s make judicial review even harder, which is just excluding people and oversight even more from the process.”
Hegarty said that this “is not a solution, because we’ll just find things getting kicked off to European courts”.
Fred Logue echoes this assessment, saying that JRs are being taken as a result of serious faults in planning decisions and the “seriously flawed” SHD laws.
“That’s why there [are] so many JRs, and that’s why they’re succeeding,” he said. “The problem isn’t judicial review, the problem is what’s upstream of judicial review, in terms of the planning, legislation and the decision making.
“And they’re the areas that should be fixed, not basically going in and undermining the rule of law by trying to squash judicial review.”
—
FULL SERIES IS OUT NOW
An opinion piece – out this morning – states that politicians blaming judicial review for housing delays are overshadowing planning reform. Our explainer - in July - reported that ‘deeply controversial’ last-minute planning law changes could lead to ‘years of litigation’.
And in our REVOLVING DOOR series – out earlier this week – the extent of lobbying by former senior public officials in Ireland is revealed for the first time.
By Cormac Fitzgerald for Noteworthy
This investigation was proposed and funded by readers of Noteworthy, the crowdfunded investigative journalism platform from The Journal. We also have a number of other projects focused on politics which you can view here.
You can support our work by submitting an idea, helping to fund a project or setting up a monthly contribution to our investigative fund HERE>>
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This isn’t currently illegal??
Well u know exactly where u can go.
No it is not but it is an offence to sell a vehicle knowing that mileage has been tampered with or to imply that mileage shown is genuine when seller knows it is not.
No. Not illegal. You can turn the millage back in your own car or indeed anyone’s car if they ask you to and it’s not breaking the law.
However, if you then sell the car without informing the new owner what the correct odometer reading should be, and you perhaps then try to pass it off as a lower millage car, that’s illegal.
So the act of interferring with it at the moment is not illegal.
6 tweets, all today, set up a fake account. Get a life
Well I would have used a different word to describe Ireland but you’re not wrong .
Red thumbs on the left lads :)
What’s yours.
So, I clock my car, ‘sell it’ to a friend. Friend sells the car. Friend doesn’t know car is clocked.
Quite a hard statement to prove that the mileage has been tampered with, let alone that it was done by the one who sold you the car in the first place and not by the any of the previous owners.
This wasn’t illegal already?
What you don’t clock your car? I knock 50k miles off my clock every January., Its great
I’m in minus figures at this stage
Stop reversing then
“Could be banned”
Only in Ireland !!
“Yearing” not “Clocking” is the scandal ….
Pre-2008 car owners are subsidising NEW car owner’s road tax.
€951 to tax a 10 year old car.
€280 to tax a NEW luxury car equivalent.
Daft Irish car tax system …. this needs new legislation.
What “luxury” car is €280 tax??
(Please note, only in North Korea would a beemer 520D be “luxury”)
Audi A4 2l diesel €230 p.a
It’s motor emissions tax not road tax. Newer cars give off less fumes. It’s pretty easy to understand.
It’s actually just Motor Tax assessed on the basis of “Private Car CO2″ or “Private Car Standard” and to be fair a well looked after and regularly serviced car will give off less fumes too.
Pure BS about lower fumes. If they cared so much about the environment then new cars would have no tax at all. Its a big scam.
Fully agree it’s a scam but what i’m saying is correct.
http://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/New_car_CO2_quarterly_update.png
http://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/New_car_CO2_change_2000_2012.png
It’s actually Motor Tax…..pre ’08 (July?) based on engine size, and on emissions since…saying newer cars give off less emissions isn’t factual. Identical ’07 and ’09 cars give off the same emissions but could have €300/€400 in the difference for Motor Tax.
If newer cars give off lower emissions them why is it cheaper to tax a commercial than say a passenger of the same year? Example 2007 commercial lwb land cruiser 3L €333. 2007 passenger LWB land cruiser 3L approx €1300!
Motor Tax: 2010 Toyota Prius €190 for the year.
Pre July 2008 ToyotaPrius €480 for the year.
Not sure about other makes.
My 2003 Renault Clio cost €450 per year.
Commercial vehicles are always going to be cheaper because they are for that purpose! You don’t need a landcruiser for dropping the kids to school or doing the weekly shop! They are supposed to be for farmers/ trades people etc. People with an actual commercial need for that kind of vehicle.
I was replying to Mitch’s comment regarding tax been cheaper on new cars due to emissions, clearly emissions are not the reason as whether commercial or passenger both vehicles of same year can’t be that different on their emission output. In my experience as a commercial vehicle owner, I would do more mileage than a passenger of same make doing the school run.
Wrong! Identical cars before and after 2008 are taxed differently. It’s pretty easy to understand. Tax should be on fuel, not the vehicle.
I’d need to see a great deal of solid evidence before I accept that manufacturing and shipping a new car produces LESS carbon than the difference between its emissions and those generated by running an older car for a few more years.
This is a stimulus measure for the motor industry, nothing more. That’s fine in its own way, but at least be honest and admit that its a regressive tax imposed to support one sector of the economy.
It’s cheap tax from janurary 08, but what most people don’t no is that any car that has the low emissions installed from June 07, u can apply for the cheap tax ang get it, spread the word as this is somthing that the government WON’T tell you!
Bring in a relatively new Prius from the UK only €500 VRT
Sorry if this is a silly question but what do you mean? How would I apply for the cheaper tax? My car is 07
Your selection of the impact of the new taxation system since 2008 is not the full picture. Equally, there are people whose road tax would go up in price under the 2008 pricing, e.g. people with large petrol engines as they give off more CO2 than diesel engines. When they purchased their car they didn’t know the pricing would change so it was considered to be unfair to then increase their road tax using a model they didn’t know existed. It would, however, make sense that anybody buying a used car pre 2008 should avail of the new pricing and this is the category I fell into when I bought my 2007 diesel car. But I’d say then there would be a lot of loop holes if this happened, .e.g a husband could just transfer the car’s ownership to his wife and so it’d look like the car had been sold and then in that way get the tax decrease.
@Mary Kavanagh! True Mary and if you bought the car on June 30 then you would have paid more tax than if you waited one day yet the emissions from the car didn’t change
@selfsustainable Yes, of course, but your millage is for work. Not leisure. big difference
In answer to the whole 08 car situation. There had to be a line drawn somewhere so the government choose the same year emissions were brought into the equation. An Audi A4 (type 8E) is the model that ran from 2004 – 2008. Type 8K is from 2008 to present. Clearly you could have registered either model in 2008 and you would have got the lower tax although the 8K is releases less CO2.
Unless we stopped selling cars for an entire year to facilitate this law change this is inevitable. Try comparing the Mazda 3 1.6 Diesel (2008 model) with the 2012 model and the tax is clearly different.
2008 = €517
2012 = €200
its not rocket science!
The UK did the correct thing and left older car tax at the low rates.
It rightly incentivised ONLY new car purchasers to purchase low CO2 cars.
This happened because the British citizens objected strongly to penalising those who could not afford new cars. UK MPs were in fact about to do like the Irish TDs did but they were stopped.
The Irish just lie down and take it.
The car dealer lobby won and forced a new law that artificially promoted the purchase of new cars … in a country that does not manufacture cars …. daft .. there is another word for it!
(You have a right to remain silent but I don’t recommend it …. bring your brains to the polling station when you VOTE)
————————————
http://www.cartaxpetition.net
The amount of clocked cars going up on donedeal over the next few weeks will be shocking
The mileage should be reported on the nct
It is already
Considering the article before about paying for an Nct cert , I can’t imagine it’s hard to get away with it .
It’s on the NCT cert alright but if you look up a car on the likes of cartel, it only gives you dates of NCT and not mileage. My old car was on Donedeal a few weeks ago with 88,000 miles on it, I sold it back in 2011 with 105,000. You may pay more at a dealer but you have some comeback as you can ask them to record odometer reading on sale slip as been genuine, if they refuse, well you’re then a fool to buy the car.
I’m into motorbikes and there’s no test on them but I’ve seen friends buying bikes with X amount of miles on them and then looking at them you would know straight away they where clocked . It’s madness.
could be banned!!!! WTF
Corrupt Ireland strikes again.
Nope. Currently it’s up to you what numbers you display on your own dashboard. The only issue is selling a car that’s misleading.
The technical terms are odometer repair or re calibration…..there is a great story about a lad who opened the dash of a golf gti some years ago to find a post-it stuck to the back of the clocks with the words “oh no, not again” written on it!!
Hahahaha thanks for that, very witty!
Biggest scam ever is the NCT, one company has the Monopoly and can charge what they like. At least in the UK you can take your car to your local MOT registered garage and get it done for a reasonable fee and they won’t try and screw you over.
Gotta say I disagree here, I find the NCT tells me what needs fixing and no more. Sure, it’s a monopoly, which is a shame, but at least that makes it consistent which in H&S is somewhat needed… MOT was notorious for passing people on a nod and a wink (though much better now).
And NCT were always right. Generally got good advice on what’s going to need work in the not-so-distant future too…
And that doesn’t happen here, no? Have a look –
http://www.cartell.ie/2011/05/applus-report-nct-bribery-claims-to-gardai/ and
http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2011/0518/2961142-ncts-dismisses-three-employees/
Just had my car nct’d and the only thing wrong was that my dipped headlights were not completely aligned. Spoke to a friend and she had the exact same this week, €55 to test the car then another €28 to retest because they use the machine to retest the lights. Utter scam artists they are.
So you’re one of those drivers that has been driving around blinding other drivers with your incorrectly focused lights yeah? Shame on the NCT for pointing it out.
I turn mine back every 7,000 miles. Saves doing an oil change and service.
This is the land of saints and scholars, nobody would dream of clocking their car.
Some type of frauds are still legal….That is a new one on me.
@Ryleigh
Does your partner know that you post with her eye as your profile?
Yes…she posts using a close up of my smile…which I find kind of cool and sexy at the same time.
Such a waste of an eye and nice smile, tragic :(
whenever i cant deliver the goods my excuse to the ladies is that its not the years but its the mileage!!!
a lot of blood needed to fill 15 inches
the Voice Id add you but im not into ladyboys hahahhaa
its a bug in facebook i maled zukerberg about it !!! geddit i ‘male’d zuckerberg hahahahahahahaah
God Im fast . green thumbs if you aggree!!!! hahaha
hey voice if im on facebook post the link haha!
Hahahaha
I like you Steven, have a green thumb.
How does this work when restoring a car that uses all parts, incl clocks, from another car and an engine from a different one again?
im guessing fill in an application to the Dept of Transport, and yes i know sounds like a money making scheme, but doesn’t that sound like the right thing to do to make it legal?
Yes that’s it, change of engine, engine number must be notified to dept.
But what mileage does the clocks show? That of the engine, the restored car or the donor car?
Never having done this I am not sure but donor engine I’d imagine or there is something about selling vehicle ‘mileage unknown’. Sorry to be vague on this m
Clocks show the milage of the donor car
Clocking isn’t illegal, but knowingly selling a clocked car is … Its only become illegal in the UK recently
Only got 2 done last week! In before the lockdown :-)
what a load a tosh. ban off road bikes from mountains and coilte forests. and ban 4 wheel drives from offroad areas like the ballyhoura mountans… fine gael are full of crap
…
What?
will i type in capitals or will i buy you a hearing aid
you would like off road vehicles banned from off road areas? any point of having an offroader then?
Cut out biscuits
NO!!!! after the storms we’ve seen what off roaders cause thru Global warming.
off roaders should feel ashamed what they indirectly caused to lahinch in clare
Yeah, thats’s exactly it. All the Land Cruiser’s and Range Rovers went out a swim in the Atlantic and caused massive waves and storms. Go back to making love to your Prius
Actually I live in Dublin and only drive a 1.6
1.6 is still too big. car tax on 1.6 should be 1000 euros
1.6 is actually quite a small engine size if you compare to most other countries in the planet
never!!! after the storms we had people are going to have to give up there cars..beside 50 years ago no one had cars…people are just going to have to get used to cycling and walking again!
Your parents / head of cabbage should be taxed ………
Steven… someone would want to tax the amount of CO2 you’re blowing!!
Good one Steven, since the fact of the matter is that you haven’t given one good argument all night
ronan no use giving out to me this is the way its going to be soon…petrol prices are going to be double next year so most people wont be able to drive soon anyway.. i dont care cause im not a peasant so i can afford it
the language of an uneducated fool who has no idea how to spell
So you have a car stavan ? I wish you were real stav , you’re too funny to be though . Some day we’ll find a real lunatic .. bye stuevin ……
Agree with your argument up to a point Stephen but can I ask you a question, which creates most pollution in an hour; all the vehicles on irish roads or the war machinery being operated by UK or Germany?
So there was no cars in 1964? I think most people would disagree with that statement. Also I for one will never give up my car for some silly environmentalists.
So if clocking is banned what will the Eastern Europeans here do with their clapped out audis and passats. Maybe clean them twice a day instead of once or add some more l.e.d. lights onto the car?? Would be devastating for them if clocking was banned but probably worse if lidl stopped selling cheap car maintenance tat.
Stephen maybe you should spend more time researching and less time voicing “your do called facts” Unlike many other countries around the world, Ireland are making a decent effort to reduce their carbon footprint. If you are so interested in reducing global warning through social media maybe you should focus your attention on countries like China that are not signing up to Kyoto Protocol because they do not want to hamper the growth of their industry.
Welcome to the 20th century, Ireland.
It’s the fuel gauge I keep tampering with, but sadly I’m not getting any more miles per gallon!
As Mama used to say “If it looks too good to be true, it probably is”……
Clocking is illegal end of. What sort of people are writing these articles ffs. Advice to anyone reading this. Delete the journal app . Cant fcuking believe im reading this article. Journal.ie= job for the boys. Good bye journal.i DELETED.
Country will ban us walking soon!
I thought that was covered under the Trades Descriptions Act at the very least. Surely it’s fraud to pass off a car with high mileage as having lower mileage?!
I don’t believe this …… Clocking a vehicle mileage is not legal here…… How far behind the world are we really. !!!!
Criminals have been getting plenty of mileage out this for years.
I’ve a question. Car had full battery drain over Xmas. Digital odometer kept it’s reading when prob was fixed. Why couldn’t the rest of the digital settings be kept too I wondered!? How’s that possible when 0 power the digital odometer reading stays put???!
Its stored in the ECU.
Ahh cheers! Pity they couldn’t store my radio settings in there too :-)
A lot of cars since 2009 have more than 4 Ecu’s and mileage is stored in each of them. Not in just display and body module/Ecu but in areas like brake, airbag, cabin control modules. Thats how some people have been caught out. BMW since 2010 have aTransponder that records on keys as well.
Maybe I should of been more careful, my comment was directed at the unionist that is on a few articles abusing Ireland and it’s people
A good tactic which might sound to simple but it works because if someone is lying and you ask the right question they will tell the truth.
Went to see a car for sale in Dundalk, the owner lives in Dundalk, 3 years old, 65000 Km in the odometer, relatively low mileage.
Asked the owner about usage and he says ” I use it to drive to work, go to the shops and the odd trips”
Asked the owner where does he works and he said “in Dublin”
You do the maths as he did.
It’s just going to be more expensive to do it.
Friend once bought a big old merc, took the dash out and on the back of the clock was written ‘oh no not again’.
Yeah I thought this was an offence already
Most of the English cars on the market here is clocked. Irish people should buy genuine used irish cars where they can contact the previous owner for the history. And keep jobs on the go. It is terrible to see the amount off car dealerships closed down in the country. But we have only ourselves to blame. It would only happen I guarantee the British government would not stand up and let that amount of imported used cars into there country.
All motor vehicles. should have the current mileage/kilometres logged on the certificate of origin at each change of ownership .
“Could”be banned?
have your say