Geoffrey N. Belton
V
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council
Headnotes
Equal Status Acts 2000-2004, - Direct discrimination, Section 3(1)(a) - Harassment, Section 11(1)(a) - Victimisation, Section 3(2)(j) - Disability Ground, Section 3(2)(g) - Disposal of goods and supply of services, Section 5(1) - Prima Facie case.
1. Dispute
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Geoffrey N. Belton that on 4 February 2005 he was treated in a discriminatory manner by the respondent, contrary to Section 5, in terms of Section 3(1) (a) and 3(2) (g) and Section 4 of the Equal Status Act 2000. The complainant referred a claim 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 then delegated the case to me, Dolores Kavanagh, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Equal Status Act.
2 Complainant's case
2.1 In January 2005 the respondent introduced a new refuse collection regime whereby persons could present their household rubbish in wheelie bins (category A). The complainant retained the use of plastic bags for presenting his household waste as, due to his disability, he could not use a wheelie bin. On 4 February 2005 the complainant received a bill from the respondent requesting payment in advance of charges relating to refuse collection. The bill was structured in a manner such that a larger charge was payable by persons availing of the bagged refuse method (category B) than was payable by persons availing of the wheelie bin service. The latter had a much smaller standing charge which could be subject to a waiver in certain specific circumstances and the remainder of their bill would consist of weight and bin lift charges. This left persons using the bagged method for presenting household waste at a financial disadvantage, as the annual charge was fixed and the complainant states that this is discriminatory on the disability ground.
2.2 The complainant further states that he was harassed on the grounds of his disability when the respondent issued literature to him regarding the new collection methods, subsequent to his having written to the respondent querying a number of aspects of the refuse collection service and billing methods. The complainant states that the non-response by the respondent to his many queries, written and by telephone, constitutes victimisation by the respondent on the disability ground as the complainant was opposing by lawful means, through his queries, an act of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004. As a result of the non-response to his queries the complainant informed the Council that he would no longer be availing of the refuse collection service.
3 Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondent introduced the wheelie bin method of refuse presentation for collection by the County Council in January 2005, following the Government policy statement of March 2002 instructing County Councils to introduce waste charges based on usage. The wheelie bins are fitted with microchips which are activated when lifted and which produce data on the number of lifts and the weight of each bin in question.
3.2 Section 52 of the Protection of the Environment Act 2003 permits local authorities to make charges in respect of the provision of any waste service by or on behalf of that authority and to vary those charges in relation to "persons, premises or services of different classes or descriptions or, ......................................... in respect of different quantities, volumes or types of waste". The local authorities are also permitted under the Act to waive, on the grounds of hardship, all or a portion of a charge made by it.
3.3 The respondent had circulated information to all households prior to the introduction of the wheelie bin service about the latter. It was a scheme that householders had to opt into. The complainant had corresponded with Councillor Mary Elliot in 2000 regarding the difficulties which the introduction of the wheelie bin service would present for him and had been informed that he would be permitted to continue to present bagged waste for collection.
3.4 The County Council had estimated, based on previous years data, the average amount of refuse disposed of per household per annum and had issued bills based on this average to all households in January 2005. All households were invited to pay the total estimated annual cost in advance, or in two equal instalments over the year. The estimated annual cost was based on each household leaving an estimated amount of refuse out for collection each fortnight. All bills (both categories) included a standing charge of €80 which qualifies for a waiver in specific circumstances (higher waiver also available in specific circumstances for large families).
Households in category A would pay the remainder of the charges based on the number of lifts per bin and the weight of each bin lifted. Households in category B were invited to pay the balance of the estimated annual cost in advance or in two equal instalments over the year, but would be expected to pay this cost, irrespective of the weight of the bagged refuse or frequency of presentation of collection i.e weekly, fortnightly .
3.5 In March 2005 the Council began a review of the method of charging for households presenting bagged waste. In July 2005, following the review, the Council ordered and issued labels, at a fixed charge per label for standard size "refusacs", to all households presenting bagged waste. The Council then waived all charges for those households up to July 2005 and refunded any payments made for that period in respect of such households. Refuse collection for the months January to July for such households was therefore free.
4 Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 The complainant bases his complaint of discrimination on the disability ground on the fact that the payment requirements for households in category B were different to those for households in category A. The complainant was unable to produce any information in relation to the numbers of disabled persons in either category. The Council stated that approximately 25 householders out of 900 in category B had disabilities. Statistics were not available for the number of householders with disability in category A.
4.2 The complainant states that persons presenting bagged waste were at a financial disadvantage vis a vis those presenting wheelie bins but was unable to produce any data on the average cost per household per annum for either method of waste presentation for comparison. While it is clear that persons presenting wheelie bins could potentially reduce costs by presenting less waste or by presenting it less frequently, it is also clear that households presenting wheelie bins with large quantities of waste on a regular basis could also potentially face higher bills for refuse collection than persons presenting bagged waste at a fixed charge. In short the complainant has not established that he, or any other person availing of the bagged waste collection service, was actually disadvantaged by the billing structure introduced by the respondent.
4.3 I am satisfied that all persons presenting bagged waste for collection by the respondent County Council were initially disadvantaged to the extent that they were unable to avail of the opportunity to reduce the annual cost of waste collection because they were to be charged a fixed amount per annum, a portion of which could be waived, for stated specific reasons, by the County Council. However, I am satisfied that the imposition of those charges by the County Council was not based either directly or indirectly on the basis of disability and is in accordance with Section 52 of the Protection of the Environment Act 2003.
4.4 I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability ground under Section 38(A) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 in relation to the structure of the charges imposed by the respondent for bagged household waste collection. The respondent had arranged, in advance of the introduction of the wheelie bin service, that the complainant could present waste for collection in bagged form and thus could avail of the service provided. I am satisfied that in doing so the respondent was providing reasonable accommodation to the complainant in accordance with Section 4 of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004.
4.5 I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment on the disability ground under Section 38 (A) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 in relation to the issue to him by the Council of information literature about refuse collection methods. The literature was issued en masse to all households as part of the drive to inform households about the new methods of refuse collection and related charges. These were issued automatically to all registered households and were not directed at the complainant in particular, or in any way related to his disability.
4.6 I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of victimisation under Section 38 (A) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004. The complainant had made a number of inquiries with the respondent by telephone and in writing. Some of these queries were dealt with by telephone and some were in train, but because of the overwhelming demand on the Council's services, related to the introduction of the new wheelie bin service, had not been responded to promptly. This was unrelated to the complainant's disability and was not in any way connected to his complaint against the Council. It was, rather, an existing difficulty for all persons seeking to pose queries with the County Council which did not have the resources to respond to all queries promptly. When they did respond to the complainant they did so courteously and apologetically for the delays encountered.
4.7 Ultimately, the respondent addressed the overall issue of the structure of charges for households using bagged waste for collection and introduced a more equitable structure for all concerned. The Council also abolished charges for households in this category from January 2005 to July 2005. Persons availing of bagged refuse collection therefore enjoyed the benefit of charges in 2005 that were in fact more favourable than those imposed on households that were availing of wheelie bins.
5 Decision
5.1 I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of (i) discrimination (ii) harassment or (iii) victimisation on the disability ground.
______________________________
Dolores Kavanagh
Equality Officer
31 August, 2006