Estate agent pays €10,000 penalty for using deposit funds given to him by client
Gabriel Dooley, of Dooleys Estate Agents in Greystones, had been given €50,000 by a company to purchase land, but the sale never concluded.
The liquidator of the company later secured a High Court order for Mr Dooley to refund the booking deposit, but he refused to do so.
Following this the liquidator made a complaint to the
Property Services Regulatory Authority
, the body responsible for licensing and regulating the property services sector.
READ MORE
A full investigation was carried out, with the PRSA making one finding of improper conduct against Mr Dooley for breaching regulation six of the Property Services (Regulation) Act 2011 (Client Moneys) Regulations 2012.
This was due to Mr Dooley withdrawing money from the €50,000 booking deposit, which was held in his client bank account, before contracts for the sale of the land being signed or finalised.
The board of the PRSA imposed a sanction on Mr Dooley for this breach, amounting to a financial penalty of €10,000. The High Court confirmed the decision on Monday.
Mr Dooley paid this fine to the PRSA before the confirmation order.
Under the Property Services Regulation Act 2011, following a complaint the PRSA can appoint an investigator who seeks relevant documentation and evidence from an agent and drafts a report which then goes to the board of the PRSA for a final decision.
If improper conduct has been found, a number of sanctions can be imposed varying from a minor sanction, such as a caution, to a major one like the suspension of the agent's licence or a financial penalty of up to €250,000.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
21 minutes ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on X's court defeat: the conflict will continue
The High Court's rejection of X's challenge to Ireland's new online safety code may come to be seen as a milestone in the enforcement of Europe's digital rulebook. It is also a reminder that the battle over online content regulation is not simply a matter of legal interpretation or child protection policy. It sits squarely in the middle of a transatlantic struggle over who sets the rules for the digital economy. Ireland's Online Safety Code, enforced by Coimisiún na Meán, requires platforms to shield children from harmful video content, introduce age checks and parental controls, and prevent the sharing of material that promotes self-harm, eating disorders or bullying. The court ruled these measures fall within the EU's Audiovisual Media Services Directive and complement the Digital Services Act, dismissing X's claims of overreach. That finding may seem straightforward from a European perspective. The EU has long sought to assert that technology companies must respect European standards if they wish to operate here. But the US views such measures through a different lens, shaped by its dominance in the tech sector and a political culture that prizes free expression in almost absolute terms. The commercial stakes are immense. The global tech services market is overwhelmingly dominated by American firms: Meta, Google, Apple and Amazon. EU regulation is therefore not just a neutral exercise in public protection but, inevitably, a rebalancing of power between the jurisdictions where these companies are based and the markets in which they operate. That tension is heightened by the fact that Ireland is home to the European headquarters of many of these firms, making it the front line in this conflict. READ MORE In Washington, the issues are often couched in the language of principle. Conservative figures such as JD Vance have been vocal in their defence of unfettered online speech, casting regulation as censorship. Such arguments, while grounded in America's First Amendment tradition, also align neatly with the commercial interests of the companies whose revenues depend on maximising user engagement. The defence of principle and the defence of profit are intertwined. The ruling against X will not end these disputes. The tech industry's legal resources are vast, and its political allies influential. But it confirms that Ireland, acting within the EU framework, has the authority to challenge the ethos of the platforms it hosts. That will not be welcomed in boardrooms in California or on Capitol Hill. As the digital economy becomes a key arena of US-EU competition, Ireland's decisions will be read not only as regulatory acts but as statements about where power lies in the online world. Tuesday's judgment suggests that, at least for now, that power may be shifting.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
HSE paid medical products company €720,000 twice for the same invoice
A company paid more than €720,000 twice by the Health Service Executive (HSE) on foot of the same invoice is now in liquidation. The HSE said it was 'engaged with the liquidator to recover and resolve this overpayment, among other matters'. So far the overpayment has not been recouped. The HSE said that, at the time of the liquidation, the company had maintained it was owed additional money by the health service but this was not paid 'pending the resolution of the double payment issue and other matters'. The HSE identified the company that received the two payments as PMD Device Solutions Ltd. READ MORE In February, PMD Device Solutions Ltd petitioned the High Court for the appointment of provisional liquidators, acknowledging it was 'clearly insolvent', with more than €14.6 million in liabilities set against €4.6 million in assets. The company claimed it was owed approximately €1.2 million by the HSE and had issued High Court proceedings against the health authority. This is being contested. The liquidator did not respond to a request for comment. The Irish Times reported on Friday that the HSE financial report for 2024 showed one company had been paid more than €720,000 from two different parts of the health service on foot of the same invoice. No cross-checking had been carried out. 'The payments were made from two legacy areas [that] were previously on separate ledgers managed by different HSE staff,' it said, adding that the HSE now has an integrated financial and procurement system. [ Provisional liquidators appointed to Cork medical supplies company Opens in new window ] PMD Device Solutions was established in Co Cork in October 2011. It developed medical products for respiratory monitoring. In early 2024 the then minister of state at the Department of Finance, Jennifer Carroll MacNeill, now Minister for Health, attended a ceremony to ring the bell at the Nasdaq Stockholm exchange in Sweden to mark an acquisition involving the company. The HSE annual report, published last Friday, says the supplier paid twice had entered into an arrangement with the health service in 2020 for the supply of diagnostic devices, ancillary supplies and information technology. It says the overall system 'was considered to be of significant value in monitoring the condition of Covid-19 patients in hospital settings'. The supplier received about €15 million between 2020 and 2024. It says the arrangement was initially put in place on an emergency basis during the pandemic and was never then regularised through an appropriate competitive tendering process. The report says different HSE units were invoiced from time to time. 'This included prepayment each quarter from mid-2022 to mid-2024 for supply of a standard number of devices, to be drawn down as required by individual hospitals.' The report says the HSE did not maintain central records of the total number of units paid for, and the number of devices received by hospitals, or paid for and remaining undrawn from the supplier, is not known. 'The executive also does not know how many of the items paid for were actually used in its hospitals.' Separately, the HSE this week provided more details on the write-off of what its financial accounts described as an 'asset' constructed in 2009 at a cost of €1.4 million. It was never used for its intended purposes and was written off last year at a cost of €800,000, according to the accounts. The HSE said the write-off related to a planned initiative to develop a hydrotherapy pool. 'A number of factors arising meant that it could not come to fruition and the space was given over to the further capital development of essential clinical capacity. This capital development has delivered six additional outpatient consulting rooms, expanded clinical storage, and hot desk facilities for clinical staff,' the HSE said.
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on the Government VAT row: tensions ahead
With many Government ministers now scattered to the beaches and byways, attention to matters in Leinster House has turned briefly quiet. But the reverberations from a row over VAT on hospitality still linger, offering a taste of fractious budgetary debates to come in September. The flare-up, pitting Fianna Fáil against Fine Gael, may seem familiar. It echoes the tensions seen earlier this summer over third-level college fees and once again highlights the uneasy balance at the heart of the Coalition. The proposal to reduce the hospitality VAT rate to 9 per cent was a Fine Gael manifesto pledge that found its way, with caveats, into the Programme for Government. But enthusiasm for the measure is not universally shared. Simon Harris, eager to demonstrate economic support for small business and the regions, has championed the move. However, his party colleague, Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe, was notably blunt in the Summer Economic Statement. The cut, he noted, would consume nearly two-thirds of the pot set aside for tax measures. READ MORE That alone was enough to raise eyebrows. More pointedly, Fianna Fáil's Minister of State Niall Collins described the proposal as an unnecessary concession to a 'price-gouging' industry. Fine Gael countered that hospitality is a major regional employer under pressure from rising costs. Both sides later sought to play down the public spat. Coalition tensions are nothing new, but the nature of this disagreement suggests tougher debates to come. While calling the 2026 budget a 'hairshirt' one would be absurd, it is clear nonetheless that the era of fiscal generosity is drawing to a close. Trade-offs are inevitable. One such compromise may involve delaying the reduction until mid-2026. That might provide enough breathing room for competing demands, though no one will be entirely satisfied. In the end, the episode may be remembered as a sideshow to more serious economic challenges. Still, it has cast a light on the limits of coalition unity in an era of fiscal tightening.
