The Equality Tribunal

3 Clonmel Street

Dublin2.

Phone:  353 -1- 4774100

Fax: 353-1- 4774141

E-mail: info@equalitytribunal.ie

Website: www.equalitytribunal.ie

Equal Status Act, 2000

EQUALITY OFFICER’S DECISIONS NO: 

DEC-S2008-113

Mr Thomas O’Donnell

(represented by John Gerard Cullen, solicitors)

- V -

Roscommon County Council

(represented by Peter Bland, Barrister-at-law and Mr. Dermot M. McDermott, Solicitor)

File No. ES/2004/0135

Date of Issue 2 December 2008

Key words

Equal Status Act, 2000 - Section 3(1) - Direct discrimination, Section 3(2)(i) – Traveller community - Provision of accommodation, Section 6(1) – inhuman and degrading treatment – European Convention on Human Rights Act – Traveller Accommodation Fund – large family – Section 6(6)

1.     Delegation under the relevant legislation

1.1.           On 15 June, 2004, the complainant, Mr. Thomas O’Donnell, referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Act, 2000. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004 and under the Equal Status Act, 2000-2004, the Director delegated the case to me, Gary O’Doherty, 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, 2000 to 2004. This delegation took place on 23 November, 2007, on which day I commenced my investigation.

1.2.           As required by Section 25(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and as part of my investigation, I held an oral hearing of the complaint in Roscommon on Wednesday, 23^rd July, 2008. Both parties were in attendance at the hearing. Documents were handed to the Tribunal by the complainant on the day of the hearing, and an opportunity was provided to the respondent to provide observations on the contents of these documents. Further documentation was requested from the respondent and, when received, an opportunity was provided to the complainant to respond to these. Further correspondence was received from both sides, and this was responded to. The last documentation relating to the case was a letter received from the complainant on 13 November, 2008 which was replied to on 21 November, 2008.

2.     Dispute

2.1.           The dispute concerns a complaint by Mr O’Donnell that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the Traveller ground contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000 in terms of Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and contrary to Section 6(1) of that Act in that he was treated less favourably than a person who was not a member of the Traveller community was, or would have been treated, in being refused access to housing by the respondent.

3.     Case for the Complainant

3.1.           The complainant, who is married with ten children and is a member of the Traveller community, returned to Boyle, County Roscommon, from England in September, 1999. On 10 October that year, he applied to Roscommon County Council for housing in Boyle town. He said that he applied under the usual rules and was not interested in Traveller specific accommodation. He said that, initially, he “left Roscommon County Council do the running” in relation to his application. Prior to February 2000, the complainant was living with his brother in accommodation in the town of Boyle, after which time he moved to live in a caravan on the Assylin Road, adjacent to the river in Boyle.

3.2.           The complainant stated that from then, until he was ultimately housed by the respondent in November 2005, it discriminated against him in not providing suitable housing for him and his family.

3.3.           The complainant stated that he was promised by the respondent that he would be housed before December 2000.  He understood that to mean he would be given a house in Tobar Padraig in Boyle before that time. Instead, he submitted that, in that month, he was provided with a mobile home on a site on the N4 outside Boyle Town, at Rathdiveen, which he said was thoroughly unsuitable. He said he was then led to believe by the respondent that there was a greater probability that he would obtain a house in Sligo. He said he was told that there were 70 members of the Traveller community in front of him on the Roscommon County Council list, but that Travellers were getting homes in Sligo. He said that he therefore proceeded to Sligo with his family in the mobile home which had been provided for him at the Rathdiveen site.

3.4.           Mr O’Donnell remained in Sligo for ten months, during which time he stated that he made several attempts to contact Roscommon County Council to establish whether a house would be made available, to no avail. During this period, he remained on the Roscommon County Council housing list and received no offer of accommodation in Sligo. Upon his return to Boyle, and until he was housed in 2005, Mr O’Donnell lived in the grounds of the college in Boyle. In September 2002, the complainant said he was offered the prospect of accommodation at a site at Grangebeg outside Boyle town. However, he told the respondent that this was not suitable for him and his family and he would not accept it. He stated that the house had only two bedrooms, that the septic tank was inadequate for his needs, that the limited sanitary facilities were in a shed, and it would entail his wife and children travelling on foot to and from the town, which was some distance away, on a road that was not suitable for pedestrians. While the respondent was proposing to renovate the site, the complainant stated that the work would take two years and he was not prepared to live in the conditions just described for that period of time. He argued that an offer such as this, or indeed the offer of accommodation at Rathdiveen, would not have been made to a person who was not a member of the Traveller community.

3.5.            The complainant said that he was not provided with any other offers of accommodation until he was offered temporary emergency accommodation in a bed and breakfast in October 2005. The complainant told the respondent, against the advice of his own solicitor, that he would not accept this accommodation as it was four miles outside the town and he was concerned that if he accepted it he would never be offered permanent accommodation suitable for his needs. Mr O’Donnell was finally housed in Church View, Boyle in November, 2005 in a house that was converted from three bedrooms to five bedrooms by the Council in order to facilitate him and his family.

3.6.           The complainant stated that he was on the housing list for four years, during which time many other people were housed. He said that he was homeless, while all these other people were living in rented accommodation, and he should therefore have been given priority over them, particularly given the thoroughly unsuitable conditions in which he stated that he and his family were living. He argued that a number of other people, who were not members of the Traveller community, were housed during the period in question. He alleged none of these people “were worthy of housing”. He also said that no member of the Traveller community had been housed in Boyle during this period.

3.7.           Mr O’Donnell stated that the respondent refused to buy a 4 bedroom house for him in Boyle town. He stated that, while he didn’t ask for a specific house, he identified to the respondent several houses that were suitable for him and his family that came on the market during the period in question and were ready for immediate accommodation. However, he said that Roscommon County Council refused to purchase any of these.

3.8.           He also stated that he had made contact with the Department of the Environment who confirmed that it had a Traveller Accommodation Fund of €19 million to house members of the Traveller community. The complainant stated that the respondent refused to avail of this fund. 

3.9.           Mr O’Donnell stated that he attempted to obtain Rent Supplement from the Department of Social and Family Affairs but was unable to obtain any suitable accommodation to rent because he was a member of the Traveller community.

3.10.       The complainant submitted that the two offers made by the Council were unsuitable. He argued that it was self-evident that if the scheme of letting priorities worked his application would have been given the highest priority whereas his application was assessed as being priority 4 (on the respondent’s computer system) as a result of which it was “not until 18 May 2005 that the Council began to actually do something”. In this regard, he said, the respondent did not comply with its statutory obligations under the Planning Acts. He also argued, in light of the conditions in which he was living during the time in question, that the respondent had not met its obligations to him under the European Convention on Human Rights and had breached his constitutional rights, in particular his right not to suffer inhuman and degrading treatment. Finally, he stated that the respondent had not discharged its onus of proof that it had not acted in a discriminatory manner.

4.     Case for the Respondent           

4.1.           The respondent, Roscommon County Council, in outlining the normal procedure for an application for housing, said that an applicant first specifies where they wish to live and is placed on a housing list. It said that it does not use a points system, but has a scheme of letting priorities that it follows in allocating houses. It says it receives a professional report from an Environmental Health Officer (EHO) in relation to each applicant, and takes that into account before establishing a priority for each individual applicant on the Housing list. This is done in accordance with its obligations, under the Housing Acts, to carry out an assessment of needs. During the period in question, there were approximately 362 families put on this list, of whom between 50 and 60 wished to live in Boyle. The complainant’s was the only family who required a five-bedroom house during the time in question. It stated that all applicants for housing are treated equally.

4.2.           It stated that a housing officer would not normally visit an applicant until housing is made available to that applicant. However, in Mr O’Donnell’s case, it said that it visited him and his family on at least nine occasions and provided reports to the Tribunal in relation to some of those visits, as well as a copy of the housing waiting list for the time in question. It said it was aware of the conditions in which the family were living, described by the complainant as squalid, even before they were outlined in the EHO report of 2001. It took cognisance of those conditions throughout the period in question, and consequently prioritised Mr O’Donnell’s application. For that reason, it considered that it did not need another EHO report. In 2000, it said that his living conditions were unfit for human habitation, living in a caravan that was unfit for 12 people but was not unfit in itself. Subsequent to December 2000, after which time the complainant was in possession of the mobile home provided to him at the Rathdiveen site, the respondent took the view that his situation was overcrowded and was therefore given priority 3 on the formal assessment of needs. In relation to the discrepancy between this, and his appearance at priority 4 on the computer system, the respondent said that on the computer system it had in place, priority 2 is broken down into two separate components, forming priority 2 and a separate priority 3. Thus Priority 3 in the formal assessment of needs becomes Priority 4 on the computer system, Priority 4 becomes priority 5 on the computer system, and so on.

4.3.           In considering what form of housing to provide to an applicant, the Council looks first at existing stock. In the complainant’s case this was not an option as it did not have a suitable house available (i.e. it did not have a house large enough to accommodate the family’s needs). In such a case, it turns to the option of buying, constructing and/or extending existing stock. This was the option followed in the complainant’s case. It does not set aside houses for allocation to members of the Traveller community. It said, however, that there are a number of programmes operated by the Council specifically designed for Travellers, including the Traveller Accommodation Fund mentioned by the complainant. This policy was initially established to comply with its legal obligations. The respondent provided a list of houses that were allocated during the period in question which indicated that Mr O’Donnell was the only member of the Traveller community who appeared on the housing list for Boyle during the period in question.

4.4.           The respondent accepted that it may be true that the complainant had been on the housing list for in excess of four years, at the time the complaint was lodged, and that others had been housed in that time although their circumstances were not as serious as the complainant’s. However, in relation to the applicants who the complainant specified, it stated that they were all put into 3-bed houses which were not suitable for the complainant. Furthermore, the difficulty in the complainant’s case was that houses suitable for 12 member families in the town of Boyle did not come up very often and there were also budgetary constraints involved.

4.5.           The respondent said that housing the complainant was a high priority for them and denied that it had refused to purchase four or five bedroomed houses that came on the market at the time, saying that these would have cost in excess of €150,000, which would have put them beyond its cost ceiling.  In that context, it said that it is not true to say, as the complainant did, that its cost ceiling was €450,000 to €500, 000. It said that it was not that it could not find a house for the complainant, it just could not find a house at a price that met its budgetary constraints. It also said that it regularly investigated what houses were available and was in constant contact with auctioneers in relation to these. It had looked at funding a house and the cheapest house available was €350,000 which was over the ceiling and it said it would not have received this sum from the Department of the Environment, as claimed by the complainant. It’s only application to the Department of the Environment was for the house in Grangebeg, which as such would have been its most expensive social housing. It said that it must have a house and an agreed price for that house before making an application and that the Department won’t deal with a vague submission. The respondent also said that it operates in a business-like fashion, and will not test the waters as suggested by the complainant.

4.6.           The respondent took issue with much of the complainant’s evidence. It categorically denied that it promised it would provide a house to him, either in Tobar Padraig or anywhere else, before December 2000. It said it told him only that it would provide him with some form of accommodation before that time. It also refuted the complainant’s allegation that it told him to move to Sligo and said that it had received only one phone call from the complainant between the time he left for Sligo and the time he returned from there. In that regard, it was undergoing a staff restructuring at that time and the principal staff who had previously dealt with the complainant had been reassigned to other tasks. It also denied that it had refused to purchase a 4-bedroom house for the complainant, saying that it had looked at houses available in Boyle from when the complainant first made his application for housing. A number of these houses were considered by it to be unsuitable, primarily because of their existing size and/or possibilities for extension. It then chose to look at, and offer, the Rathdiveen site.

4.7.           With regard to the actual offers of housing that were made to the complainant, the respondent confirmed that, as described above, it made three offers prior to his housing at Church View. The offers were Rathdiveen in 2000, Grangebeg in 2002 and B&B accommodation in 2005. However, it denied that any of them were unsuitable. With regard to the Rathdiveen site, the respondent said that it was two miles from the N4 and was owned by Roscommon County Council. The offer was considered to be a temporary arrangement, pending the obtaining of a suitable house.

4.8.           The respondent also considered that its offer of accommodation at Grangebeg was suitable. It had identified the site as a large one on which it could provide appropriate sanitary facilities. It stated that the sanitary facilities provided initially were put in what had been a shed, however it was larger than a normal shed and had been converted for sanitary purposes, and the site had a septic tank and a flush toilet. There was an existing two bedroom house on the site, and the Council had identified it as suitable for extension and had drawn up plans for same. It was a priority project for the Council to convert the house into a 5-bedroom house ready for occupation within 4-5 months. It said the site was one mile from the speed limit into Boyle, two miles from the town centre, and a map was provided to the Tribunal to illustrate this. It said that, for housing purposes, the Council would normally include the hinterland immediately around the relevant town and/or village. It said that the offer met the long-term and short-term needs of the complainant and that the site around the house would be secure for health and safety during the construction and that there would have been no problem when the family was there. The respondent said it never suggested that he live in the house itself while construction was ongoing and that there was no question of construction going on within 12 feet of the mobile home. In relation to the complainant’s objection to the house being at the side of the road in a rural area, it said it was the same as any house on the side of any road. The respondent said it made the offer of the house to the complainant before meeting with him and driving out to the site. It said that the complainant indicated at that meeting that he would not accept the offer. It said the offer was not segregationist and was not related to his membership of the Traveller community.

4.9.           In relation to the B and B accommodation, it said that it had not offered B and B accommodation to the complainant prior to July 2005 as it had offered him other facilities and its goal was to provide long-term accommodation.

4.10.       The respondent said that the refurbishment and extension of the house Mr O’Donnell was eventually given, in Church View, cost €157,000. The Council was aware late in 2004 that it would become available. Prior to that, it had been occupied by an existing tenant. There were two different people in that house during the time in question. It had not been offered to the complainant at an earlier stage as, at first, the respondent was still trying to acquire a 5-bed house for the complainant. When the Church View property became vacant in 2003, the respondent was still hopeful that the complainant would take the house at Grangebeg.

4.11.       The respondent argued that the complainant’s situation couldn’t be a manifestation of prohibited conduct of any description by anyone as he had not made an application for rent supplement. It said that the HSE provided this, and it was an option available to the complainant of which he did not avail.

5.     Matters for consideration

S.6(6)

5.1.           Section 6 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 states, inter alia,

(1)  A person shall not discriminate in –

(a)  disposing of an estate or interest in premises

(b)  terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or

(c)   providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities

…………….

(6) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be construed as prohibiting –

            (a) a housing authority, pursuant to its functions under the Housing Acts, 1966 to 1998, or

            (b) a body approved under section 6 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1992

from providing, in relation to housing accommodation, different treatment to persons based on family size, family status, marital status, disability, age or membership of the Traveller community.

5.2.           The respondent argued that this provision precludes the Tribunal from considering the subject matter of this complaint. It said that the entire history of the complaint is precluded from the definition of discrimination as a result. It argued that the dictum expression unius est exclusion alterius[1] dictates that S.6(1) cannot overrule S.6(6), which includes both more favourable and less favourable treatment. (In short, because S.6(6) allows different treatment, it does not preclude less favourable treatment). It said that the Minister cannot carry out his/her functions if (s)he cannot treat someone less favourably. Indeed, it argued that the Act cannot apply in this case and the complaint should therefore be dismissed in accordance with Section 22, as it was thereby vexatious.

5.3.           In DublinCityCouncil –v- Grace Deans, Judge Hunt said he “cannot construe subsection 6 (of Section 6) as exempting a housing authority in its entirety from all application of the equality legislation”. He said it simply provides “that a housing authority is entitled to base its priorities and its housing plan on different treatment to persons based on family size, family status and the other considerations set out in this subsection”. The provision “must appear to be enabling rather than prohibitory.”   As the Traveller ground is also specified in Section 6(6), these principles apply to the present complaint. Therefore, Section 6(6) does not preclude me from considering the matters at hand, though I must take into account that it enables the respondent, at least in its scheme of priorities and its housing plan, to provide different treatment for housing accommodation based on an individual’s membership of the Traveller community. Thus, for example, it can set aside accommodation, or provide different forms of accommodation, for members of the Traveller community. Otherwise, however, Section 6(6) does not provide an exemption from the application of Section 6(1), as defined by Section 3, and so the latter must apply to the present complaint except where the respondent has provided housing accommodation in the manner just described.

Jurisdiction with regard to dates

5.4.           The respondent also submitted that I could not consider any matters subsequent to 19 December, 2003, when it responded to a letter received from the complainant. It submits that, as this was the last act of discrimination referred to in the original complaint, any later alleged acts of discrimination are properly the subject of separate complaints.

5.5.           In Christina Boland –v- Killarney Town Council[2], the Equality Officer considered matters relating to the treatment of the complainant by the respondent up to and including the date on which she was housed, which was subsequent to the receipt of the complaint in the Tribunal. Indeed, there are a number of other cases in which the Tribunal has considered matters relating to a complaint which were subsequent to the receipt of the original complaint form[3]. In the present complainant, the complainant similarly to Boland, alleges that there was more than one act of prohibited conduct, and that the alleged discrimination ended when he was housed in Church View in November, 2005. It is therefore within my jurisdiction to investigate those alleged acts.

6.     Conclusions of the Equality Officer

6.1.           The thrust of the complainant’s submission was based on two basic assumptions. Firstly, he considered that he had already discharged his burden of proof prior to the oral hearing, even though I made it clear to him at the beginning of the hearing that this was not the case. Section 3(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) states that discrimination shall be taken to occur where, on any of the grounds specified in the Act, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated. In cases such as this, the burden of proof lies with the complainant who is required to demonstrate that a prima facie case of discrimination exists. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised. In considering what constitutes a prima facie case, I note that Section 38A of the Equal Status Act, 2000, as amended by the Equality Act, 2004, requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts upon which he/she can rely in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him/her.  While this provision was not in force at the time this complaint was received, it is reflective of the case law that was in operation prior to its implementation[4]. I also note that it mirrors the EC Burden of Proof Directive (Council Directive 97/80/EC), albeit this directive applies only to the Gender ground. In deciding on this complaint, therefore, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case, as thus defined, has been established by the complainant. 

6.2.           Secondly, the complainant regarded this forum as being a suitable one to consider issues relating to a number of matters which are outside the remit of the Act, including particular human rights obligations which he alleged were not met by the respondent, issues relating to the Planning Acts and issues relating to the Constitution. However, my jurisdiction in relation to this complaint extends only to those matters which fall within the remit of the Act. It would therefore be ultra vires for me to consider many of the arguments made, and material provided by the complainant. With the exception of paragraph 6.3 below, I have therefore not considered, or otherwise referred to, such extraneous matters in this decision, except in so far as they are relevant to the Act and the alleged breach of the Act by the respondent.

6.3.           Section 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act, 2003 states:

“(1) In interpreting and applying any statutory provision or rule of law, a court shall, in so far as possible, subject to the rules of law relating to such interpretation and application, do so in a manner compatible with the State’s obligations under the Convention provisions.”

The complainant argued that I must have regard to this and to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in general in making my decision in this case. He also deduced that this meant I was obliged to consider inhuman and degrading treatment as being in and of itself a discriminatory ground under the Act, so that once he, the complainant, was able to show that he suffered inhuman and degrading treatment, or indeed that there was any other breach of his human rights as defined in the ECHR, then he had proven his case and shifted the burden of proof to the respondent. I do not accept this interpretation of my obligations under the provisions in question. As already stated, I do not have jurisdiction to consider any matters beyond the remit of the Equal Status Act. Furthermore, Section 3 of that Act sets out clearly what constitutes discrimination, including that it must be based on the discriminatory grounds set out therein. In short, the complainant must show that the respondent has engaged in prohibited conduct on one of the discriminatory grounds, in this case the Traveller ground. The Equality Tribunal is not the appropriate forum in which to seek a determination as to whether the complainant suffered inhuman and degrading treatment in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. and I would be acting ultra vires were I to do so.

6.4.           The question I have to answer in relation to this complaint, then, is whether the complainant was treated less favourably than someone who was not a member of the Traveller community was, or would have been, treated in the same or similar circumstances. In that light, I shall therefore now examine, in turn, each of the decisions or actions of the respondent which the complainant alleges were discriminatory.

6.5.           I am satisfied that there was miscommunication between the complainant and respondent between September and December 2000 in relation to the accommodation at Tobar Padraig. I am satisfied that this had nothing to do with the complainant’s membership of the Traveller community. On balance, I am also satisfied that there was a series of misunderstandings in relation to the complainant’s move to Sligo and that the respondent did not recommend that he should go there. Between the time he left for Sligo and the time he returned to Boyle, he did try to make contact with the respondent, but any failure to do so was not caused by any discriminatory act on the part of the respondent. It was simply down to bad luck and bad timing, in that the respondent was in a state of flux in relation to staffing and the complainant was unaware of this.

6.6.           I am satisfied that the offer of the accommodation in Rathdiveen would probably not have been made to a person who was not a member of the Traveller community, as it included an element of Traveller specific accommodation. In this context, I have noted the description of the complainant’s living conditions prior to that offer being made. I also note that he and his family would have continued to have to live in those conditions in the absence of such an offer, as I am satisfied that the respondent would have had great difficulty in accommodating the complainant otherwise. I believe the respondent considered it had no choice but to make this offer and am satisfied, therefore, that, in all the circumstances of this case, the complainant was not treated less favourably by this offer. The offer was therefore not discriminatory, particularly in light of what has already been said in relation to Section 6(6) of the Act, which, in any event, allows for such differential treatment of the complainant.

6.7.           I am satisfied that the offer of the accommodation in Grangebeg was not influenced by the complainant’s membership of the Traveller community. I am satisfied that the same offer would have been made to him if he was not a Traveller.

6.8.           I am satisfied that the making, in July 2005, of an offer of temporary accommodation in a Bed and Breakfast was not influenced by the complainant’s membership of the Traveller community. I am satisfied that the same offer would have been made to him if he was not a Traveller.

6.9.           I am satisfied that there were significant budgetary constraints on the respondent in attempting to obtain housing for the complainant. Having considered all the evidence surrounding the decisions affected by these constraints, I am, on balance, satisfied that the complainant’s status as a member of the Traveller community had no influence where the making of any such decision was to the complainant’s detriment. That is to say, that any decisions which were influenced by his status as a member of the Traveller community were in his favour and related to obtaining Traveller specific funding (e.g. the final decision to offer him a place in Church View).

6.10.       I accept the evidence of the respondent that it made several attempts to purchase private accommodation suitable for the complainant. However, these attempts were unsuccessful, not least because of the budgetary constraints already alluded. I therefore do not believe that the respondent treated the complainant less favourably on the grounds of his membership of the Traveller community in being unable to purchase from private vendors accommodation that was suitable for his use.

6.11.       I am satisfied that the respondent, based on the evidence presented to me in the course of my investigation into this complaint, does not discriminate against Travellers generally. Indeed, it provides specific assistance for Travellers, both as required by statute and case law, and additional to any such obligations. I also note that the complainant, while claiming discrimination as a member of the Traveller community, made a specific request to the respondent that he not be dealt with as a member of the Traveller community in being allocated housing. While I can understand his frustration and anger at then being given Traveller specific accommodation by the respondent (i.e. the mobile home at the Rathdiveen site), I am of the view, as already stated, that this was in his favour, or at least was not to his disadvantage, and his situation would have only been made worse if that offer had not been made.

6.12.       On balance, I am satisfied that assessing the complainant as Priority 3 was an objective decision made without regard to whether or not he was a member of the Traveller community. Furthermore, his appearance as Priority 4 on the computer system was due solely to a discrepancy between the manual and computer records that was also unrelated to his status as a member of the Traveller community.

6.13.       The complainant gave other examples of alleged discriminatory acts, arguing that, essentially, the respondent did not do enough to assist him. For instance, he said the respondent could have explored further the options with the Department of the Environment in relation to the Traveller Accommodation Fund and other Traveller specific funding, it could have considered at an earlier stage the accommodation at Church View for his benefit, and it should have offered bed and breakfast accommodation at an earlier stage. However, in relation to these and any of the other actions or decisions taken by the respondent which the complainant alleges were discriminatory, I am satisfied that the complainant has not established any facts from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him, as he has not established to my satisfaction that any of these actions, decisions, errors or omissions were related to the complainant’s status as a member of the Traveller community. They were therefore not discriminatory.

6.14.       In short, I consider that the respondent was genuine and acted bona fides in trying to house the complainant, but faced considerable obstacles in trying to do so. I am of the view that the officers who acted for the respondent in relation to the complainant’s application did so to the best of their ability and with a genuine concern for the conditions in which the complainant was living.

6.15.       In relation to this complaint, then, I believe that the complainant’s membership of the Traveller community had no bearing on any action taken or decision made by the respondent, unless it benefited him or was otherwise lawfully made. Furthermore, I am satisfied that a person in the complainant’s circumstances who was not a member of the Traveller community would not have been treated more favourably by the respondent than the complainant was. The problems that the respondent faced in housing the complainant had, in my view, nothing to do with his membership of the Traveller community. They were caused by the fact that he had a large family and required a five bedroom house.

7.     Decision

7.1.           In accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, 2000, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision. 

7.2.           I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of less favourable treatment on the Traveller ground in terms of Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(2)(i) of the Equal Status Act, 2000

7.3.           Accordingly, I conclude the investigation and find against the complainant.

_____________

Gary O’Doherty

Equality Officer

2 December 2008