The Equality Tribunal
3 Clonmel Street
Dublin 2.
Phone: 353 -1- 4774100
Fax: 353-1- 4774150
E-mail: info@equalitytribunal.ie
Website: www.@equalitytribunal.ie
Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2008
Decision number
DEC-S2009-059
A complainant
V.
A local authority
(Represented by Michael Houlihan and Partners Solicitors)
Case ref ES/2008/0209
Issued 04 September 2009
DEC-S2009-059 ES/2008/0209
Keywords:
Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004 - Discrimination, section 3(1)(a) - Traveller community ground, section 3(2)(i) - Disposal of premises and provision of accommodation 6(1)(c) - notification, section 21 - locus standi, right to seek redress.
1. Delegation under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2008
1.1. A complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts on 14 November 2008. In accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, the Director then delegated the case to me, Tara Coogan, 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 Acts. An investigation, in accordance with section 25(1) of the Acts, commenced on 20 February 2009. The Director granted the respondent brief adjournments in April and June 2009. An oral hearing, as part of the investigation, was held in Limerick on 23 June 2009.
2. Dispute
2.1. The dispute concerns a complaint of unlawful discrimination on the Traveller community ground. The complainant submitted that a named local authority treated him less favourably contrary to section 3(1) and 6(1)(c). The complainant maintains that a member of his extended family was forced to sign a tenancy agreement which he submitted stated that no member of the Traveller community could visit or take up residence in the house she was letting and if they did, the tenancy agreement would become null and void. The respondent was notified on 01 September 2008.
3. Naming of parties
3.1. I have decided that in the interest of protecting the identity of a named third party who was not involved in these proceedings, the Tribunal must not name the parties involved in this dispute.
4. Notification
4.1. The respondent raised the issue of notification by arguing that the dwelling house at the centre of this complaint was abandoned in March/April 2008. It was argued, that the two month time limit set out in section 21(1) had not been compiled with and that the complaint was therefore statute barred.
4.2. The respondent submitted that the complainant's assertion that he only became aware of the alleged discrimination on 11 July 2008 is spurious at the least. The respondent submitted that the complainant's statement of the details of the complaint are utterly disingenuous if it were to be accepted that he only became aware of the alleged discrimination on the date he stated on the form. This is because the complainant maintains that due to the fact that a named person had signed a document attached to a tenancy agreement, he and his son were prohibited from visiting the house and therefore they were unable to visit. It was submitted by the respondent that on any objective examination of that sequence of events it cannot be accepted that the complainant was prohibited from the house when he only noted the alleged issue in July 2008 when, it was submitted, the named tenant had already left the premises subject to the disputed signed undertaking.
4.3. While it is clear, from the complainant's own evidence, that he did visit the said property during this time, I do accept that he only became aware of the tenancy terms in and around July 2008 when the then former tenant showed him the agreement. It is not for this Tribunal to speculate why the named person did so. I accept that the disputed undertaking, on the respondent's own evidence, was a confidential 'statement of fact' and was not intended to be scrutinised by anyone else. Therefore, it is logical that the complainant would not be aware of it.
4.4. I also accept, on the balance of probabilities, that the content of the disputed undertaking was such that the complainant became upset and the he sought clarification in and around that time. While I appreciate that the notification form explicitly states that the complainant was not able to visit the house, I accept the complainant's explanation that because of this additional tenancy clause that had been signed by the named party and witnessed by the respondent's employee, his visits could have led to a situation where the tenant would have been evicted and that, while he did not know it at the time, he believed that because of this agreement he was not welcome in the house very often to visit his grandchildren. In accordance with the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004, discrimination shall be taken to occur --
(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as the ''discriminatory grounds'') which --
(i) exists,
(ii) existed but no longer exists,
(iii) may exist in the future, or
(iv) is imputed to the person concerned.
Therefore, I accept that the notification requirements have been satisfied in accordance with section 21(2).
5. Conclusion of the Equality Officer
5.1. Having heard all the facts pertaining to this case, it is my opinion that the complainant's claim has no legal standing in this Tribunal. This is because the complainant was not at the material time in receipt of accommodation and/or service within the meaning of the acts from the respondent. This matter was admitted by the complainant both orally at the hearing and subsequently - by his own volition - in writing. While I appreciate that the complainant who is a member of the Traveller community - having been shown an signed undertaking by the named third party that clearly prohibits members of the Traveller community from visiting or residing in a specific dwelling - believes that he received less favourable treatment from the respondent. Legally, however, this does not give him the right to seek redress under these acts. I appreciate that the complainant clearly submitted that he believes that this additional tenancy agreement affected his relationship with the tenant, thus creating conditions where he was in receipt of less favourable treatment from the respondent. However, in law, this is not the case. The complainant, in law, was receiving nothing from the respondent. As far as the law is concerned the complainant had no legal relationship with the respondent and therefore cannot seek redress for any prohibited conduct under these acts.
6. Decision
6.1. In accordance with section 25(4) I have concluded my investigation and issue the following decision:
6.2. The complainant has no locus standi in relation to this complaint. Therefore the complaint fails.
________________
Tara Coogan
Equality Officer
04 September 2009