A landmark High Court decision yesterday has cleared the way for four Dublin men to buy, at 1996 prices, their local authority homes in Sallynoggin.
An expert valuer, who gave evidence that was accepted by the court, put the 1996 value of the houses in today's prices at €37,000-€40,000. The men may also avail of local authority discounts of 30 per cent and first-time buyer's grants, which would reduce those sums considerably and leave the men paying prices of under €30,000.
In a judgment on the case taken by the four men against Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Ms Justice Fidelma Macken ruled that any legal difficulties with the men buying their houses had ended in 1995 and there was no sufficient explanation for further council delays from them in making an offer to the men to buy their homes.
She found the men's legitimate expectation to be permitted to buy their homes became, from 1995, a live legal expectation capable of being fulfilled.
She said 12 months was the maximum period she would allow from 1995 for the council to address all matters on making an offer to buy the houses. This meant the men were entitled to buy now at 1996 prices and with local authority discounts.
She rejected the men's claim that they should be entitled to buy the houses at 1979 prices.
The legal proceedings were initiated in 2000 by Thomas McDonald, Gary Sinnott, John Dunleavy and Hermie Wallace who live in adjoining maisonettes at Pearse Close, Sallynoggin. They claimed that, at various stages from 1979, the council had asked for expressions of interest in buying the houses. The men said they had always wished to buy their houses and had a legitimate expectation of doing so but were frustrated in their efforts by the council.
After yesterday's decision, Mr McDonald said he and his wife, Clara, had sought for years to own their homes and to be able to leave something for their children. The council had "treated us like rubbish", he said. He was very happy with the court decision and said he would be buying his home.
The judge noted that the council had written to the men in 1979 asking for expressions of interest in buying the maisonettes. All four expressed interest and had argued that, from 1979, they had a legitimate expectation that they would be able to buy their homes.
They also said that, had they taken the option to transfer to a house at any time from 1979, they would have had an opportunity to buy that house in light of government policy on local authority home ownership.
The council had claimed the 1979 letter was sent to gauge tenants' interest in buying their homes and was not an offer to sell.
The council argued it had a discretionary power under the Housing Acts whether or not to sell a house to a tenant and could not offer the houses for sale until it was satisfied all legal and other difficulties were overcome.
It also said Mr Dunleavy and Mr Sinnott had become tenants in 1980 and 1987 respectively and therefore could not rely on the 1979 letter.
The judge found that, until 1995, the council held a reasonable view that there were difficulties with the sale of the maisonettes which could affect purchasers and the council itself.
She found that up to that time the council did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in deciding the maisonettes should not be offered for sale to the tenants.
She held that the council made representation to the tenants about selling the houses and that the tenants relied on that representation.
But each time a new scheme for tenant purchase came into effect (new schemes came into effect in certain years from 1979 on), she found that the four plaintiffs had waived their rights to purchase under the prior scheme at prices under that latter scheme.
Once the later schemes came into effect, their right to have the houses sold to them at 1979 prices was waived, she ruled. She said that situation continued until 1995 when a further purchase scheme was introduced.
An offer from the council to permit the tenants to purchase their homes was only made in 1999, however.
The council had not provided a sufficient explanation for the delay from 1995 in facilitating the purchase of the houses, the judge held.
She would allow the council a maximum 12-month period from 1995. In those circumstances, the plaintiffs were entitled to buy their houses at 1996 prices.
