Patricia Ann McGowran V Limerick County Council
Date Of Issue 08/12/2005
Equal Status Act 2000
Summary of Decision DEC-S2005-198
Patricia Ann McGowran V Limerick County Council
Key words
Equal Status Act 2000 - Direct discrimination, section 3(1)(a) - Gender, section 3(2)(a) Victimisation, section 3(2)(j) - Supply of goods and services, section 5(1) - Local Authority housing - Purchase and subsequent sale of Council property.
Dispute
This dispute concerns a complaint that Ms McGowran was not permitted to purchase her Council house initially in 1996 or sell it subsequently on account of her gender. The complainant also alleges that the Council refused to allow her build a shrubbery because she was a woman and that they victimised her subsequently for lodging complaints against them.
Decision
The Equality Officer noted that the original incident occurred prior to the coming into force of the Equal Status Act 2000 and that he had no jurisdiction to hear the first element of the complaint.
In regard to the consent of sale issue, he said that he was satisfied that Limerick County Council had sufficient genuine concerns about consenting to the sale of the house in 2001. Accordingly, he said that he could not accept that there was any discriminatory reasons behind the decision to refuse to give consent.
The Equality Officer also said that, from listening to the evidence of the Council's Engineer at the Hearing, that he was satisfied that the Council was genuinely supportive of the shrubbery project but that the engineer had some concerns that he wanted to address first before granting permission for the project. He concluded, therefore, that discrimination was not a factor in the decision. The Equality Officer also said that he could find no evidence of victimisation by the Council in its dealings with the complainant.
Accordingly, he found in favour of the respondents in the matter.
In light of the fact that both parties still appear to be generally supportive of the shrubbery project outside the complainant's house, the Equality Officer suggested that the Council might now consider putting the matter back on its list of upcoming work projects.
Equal Status Acts 2000-2004
Decision DEC-S2005-198
Patricia Ann McGowran V Limerick County Council
1. Dispute
This dispute concerns a complaint by Patricia Ann McGowran that she was discriminated against and victimised by staff of Limerick County Council on a number of occasions between 1996 and 2003, contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Acts.
The complainant maintains that she was discriminated against on the gender ground in terms of sections 3(1) and 3(2)(b) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 and victimised subsequently contrary to the provisions of section 3(2)(j) of the Acts.
2. Delegation under the Equal Status Act, 2000
This complaint was referred to the Director of Equality Investigations under the Equal Status Act 2000. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act 1998 and under the Equal Status Act 2000, the Director has delegated the complaint to myself, Brian O'Byrne, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Act.
3. Summary of Case
The complainant has identified the following three occasions on which she alleges she suffered discrimination. The respondents reject all three allegations.
1. 1996-1997 Application by the complainant to purchase her Council house
2. 2001 Application by the complainant to sell on her Council house
3. 2000-2003 Application by the complainant to build a shrubbery adjacent to her Council house
Conclusions
1. Application by the complainant in 1996 to purchase her Council house
In 1996, having resided in her home for 11 years, the complainant applied to purchase her home from Limerick County Council. Her application was initially refused and the complainant maintains that this was on account of the fact that she was a woman. The respondents claimed that discrimination was not a factor and that the purchase was delayed as there was a suspicion that she was not permanently in residence at her address in 1996. The complainant accepted how this view might have been taken as, at the time, she used to visit her sick mother in England on a regular basis. In 1997, after the complainant had satisfied the Council that she was residing full time at 14 Sycamore Drive, the Council agreed to sell the property to her.
I note that the incident described above occurred in 1996 some years before the coming into force of the Equal Status Act 2000 in October 2000. Accordingly, I have no jurisdiction to hear and decide upon this first element of the complaint.
2. Application by the complainant in 2001 to sell on her Council house
When the complainant sought to sell her residence in 2001, she was refused consent to sale and she believes that this refusal arose from the fact that she was a woman. In defending their decision to refuse to give consent to sale in respect of the applicant's house in 2001, the respondents state that they were acting in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Acts 1966 -1997 which state that a Housing Authority may refuse to consent to a sale if they are of the opinion that "the intended sale would, if completed, leave the seller or any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with that person without adequate housing". As Ms McGowran had not, at the time, provided evidence that she was in the process of purchasing alternative accomodation, the respondents state that they had a genuine concern at the time that the complainant would be left without security of residence.
At the Hearing on 19 October 2005, the complainant accepted that she was planning to rent accomodation at the time with a view to purchasing alternative accomodation in the future. On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that Limerick County Council had sufficient genuine concerns about consenting to the sale of 14 Sycamore Drive in 2001. Accordingly, I cannot accept that there was any discriminatory reasons behind the decision to refuse to give consent.
3. Applcations in 2000 and 2003 to build a shrubbery on Council's footpath
Over the years that Ms McGowran has occupied 14 Sycamore Drive, she says that she has been subjected to numerous incidents of vandalism from youths who congregate on a wide stretch of footpath located between her house and her neighbour's house. In 2000, she sought and was granted consent from the Council to build a shrubbery and rockery on the additional stretch of footpath on condition that no obstruction was caused to the main footpath. As Ms McGowran decided to sell her house in 2001, she says that she did not proceed with the shrubbery at the time. When she decided to proceed with the project a year later, she applied to some local agencies for assistance as there would be some heavy work involved in digging up the footpath. At that point, the agencies asked to see the letter of consent from Limerick County Council but Ms Mc Gowran could not find it.
Over the following months, she called to the Council's Offices on several occasions seeking a copy of the 2000 consent letter but the Council could not locate it. Instead, the project was re-evaluated by the Council in 2003 but, on that occasion, the Council's Engineer, Mr James O'Callaghan, refused permission on the basis that he needed more time to consider the implications this work was likely to have on other residents. The complainant believes that this refusal was down to the fact that she was a woman and pointed to the fact that several men in the estate had built shrubberys adjacent to their properties. The Council denied that they had given permission for any such shrubberies in the Estate and said that they were not aware that any existed. In reply, the complainant said that the shrubberies in question were, in the main, at the rear of residences.
At the Hearing, Mr O'Callaghan said that when he evaluated the project in 2003, he had been totally unaware that consent had already been given by the Housing Dept in 2000 (by late 2003, a copy of the consent letter had been unearthed by the Council on foot of a FOI request from Ms McGowran). He did say, however, at the Hearing, that, even if he had known about the 2000 consent that he personally would probably not have given his consent immediately in 2003 as he believed that there was a "right of way" issue that still needed to be discussed further with other residents who would be affected.
He recalled that he called to Ms McGowran in June 2003 to discuss the project with her. He said that he knew she was having problems with vandalism and that he was anxious to help her solve the problem. At their meeting, he informed her that he would raise the issue with the Estate Management Section with a view to developing a proposal to redirect the footpath and build a shrubbery. Shortly afterwards, the discrimination notification was received which he considered was totally unfounded. At that point, he decided that the best course of action was to put the shrubbery project on hold until the complaint had been dealt with.
On considering the circumstances leading up to Mr O'Callaghan's refusal to grant permission for the shrubbery works in 2003, I can understand Ms McGowran's frustration. However, it appears to me that she herself was partly to blame for the work not being carried out prior to 2003 as it was she who mislaid the original 2000 letter of consent from the Council which led to the Council getting involved again. If Ms McGowran had been able to produce the letter when asked by the agencies, it is likely that the project would have been carried out by the agencies without any further Council involvement.
From listening to the evidence of Mr O'Callaghan at the Hearing, I am satisfied that he was genuinely supportive of the shrubbery project but that he had some concerns that he wanted to address first before granting permission for the project. Unfortunately, it seems to me, that Ms McGowran misinterpreted Mr O'Callaghan's intentions believing that he was delaying the project for discriminatory reasons. The evidence before me, however, indicates that discrimination was not a factor in Mr O'Callaghan's decision. Accordingly, I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination in this instance. In addition, I can find no evidence to support the allegation that the complainant was victimised by the Council for lodging complaints against them.
4. Decision
I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination or victimisation in terms of sections 3(1), 3(2)(b) or 3(2)(j) of the Equal Status Acts. Accordingly, I find in favour of the respondents.
It is noted that the investigation of this complaint has delayed any further progress with the development of a shrubbery adjacent to the complainant's residence. In light of the fact that it would appear that both parties were generally supportive of the project in 2003, I would suggest that the Council might now consider putting the matter back on its list of upcoming work projects.
Brian O'Byrne
Equality Officer
8 December 2005