The Equality Tribunal
3 Clonmel Street
Dublin 2
Phone: 353-1-4774100
Fax: 353-1-4774141
E-mail: info@equalitytribunal.ie
Website:www.equalitytribunal.ie
Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008
Equality Officer Decision
DEC-S2011-054
Artur Huszcz
(represented by Alexander and Iwona Rosek)
-v-
Billy Grennan House Let Ltd
File Ref: ES/2010/033
Date of Issue: 23 November 2011
Delegation under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008
This complaint was referred to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2008 on 26 February 2010. In accordance with his powers under Section 75 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2008, the Director delegated the complaint to me, Elaine Cassidy, 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, 2000-2008. On 2nd August 2011 my investigation commenced, when the case was delegated to me. As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, an oral hearing of the matter was held on 3 November 2011 and both parties were in attendance. A Polish interpreter was present at the request of the complainant's representative.
1. Dispute
This dispute concerns a claim by the complainant, Mr Huszcz (hereafter "the complainant") that he was discriminated against by Billy Grennan House Let Ltd (hereafter "the respondent") on the grounds of race, in terms of Section 3(2)(h) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2011.
Summary of the Complainant's Case
2.1 The complainant is a Polish national who rented a house for about 3 years through the respondent letting agency. The complainant submitted a detailed description of problems which he had with the house, including that there was a stain on the ceiling in one of the rooms and that the burglar alarm was not fixed when he requested it, thus putting his family in danger. As a result he believed that he was paying for a service which he did not receive. He states that Irish people received a better service than he did.
2.2 The complainant submitted that when he moved out to return to Poland, the house was let to an African family for a lower rent and he submits that this is also discrimination on the grounds of race. He submitted that the problems which he experienced with the house were fixed before the African family moved in.
2.3 The complainant submitted that the respondent refused to make the final inspection of his house on a day (Saturday) which suited the complainant. He submitted that as a result of this, he had to change his travel date to Poland and this cost him extra. He submitted that the respondent claimed that the reason was because they did not work on Saturdays; however he stated that this is not true and that the respondent did provides services to Irish people on Saturdays.
2.4 The complainant claimed that the respondent refused to allow him the right to be represented by his chosen representative. He claimed that because his English was poor, he asked his representative to speak to the respondent about the final inspection of the house. He claims that in refusing to speak to his representative, the respondent discriminated against him on the grounds of race.
Summary of the Respondent's Case
3.1 The respondent submitted that they are a letting agency managing a large number of properties and the majority of their clients are non-national, primarily Polish and Lithuanian. In this case they were managing the house on behalf of the owner who was based in the UK. They submitted that the decision to spend money on repairs or any other work to a property is entirely the decision of the landlord.
3.2 Regarding the complainant's claim that there were problems throughout his tenancy, which they refused to address, the respondent submitted that this was emphatically not the case. They submitted that they had an excellent relationship with the complainant, right up until the last week of his tenancy. As a result of this relationship, they allowed the tenant to make a list of all the issues which needed to be fixed in his house, and they paid him (the complainant) to do all this work. In addition to this, they offered other work, when the opportunity arose, to the complainant (a plumber) in order to help him out. Therefore they submitted if there had genuinely been unaddressed problems in the house, the complainant would have listed them with the other tasks.
3.3 With respect to the rent issue, the respondent submitted that rents are 100% market driven. As a result of the fact that virtually all their rentals are advertised on large national databases, potential tenants are fully aware of the precise market rate at any given time. At the time the complainant moved out, there was a major slump in the rental rates and this was reflected in the new rate agreed with the following tenants. The respondent stated that in recent years, rents are constantly renegotiated with both new and existing tenants as market conditions change. They further stated that they had actually offered to negotiate a lower rate with the complainant, but he said he had to return to Poland due to lack of work in his industry.
3.4 Regarding the issue of the final house inspection, the respondent stated that their normal process is to check the house within about a week of the tenant moving out. They stated that it is not normal procedure to do this while the tenant is still living in the house, because it is supposed to be a final inspection of the condition of the house. Furthermore they stated that while they do work on Saturdays for urgent issues, they do not do routine work on Saturdays. They regarded a final house inspection as routine work and they stated that they did not treat the complainant any differently in this regard.
3.5 The respondent submitted that they had enjoyed an excellent relationship with the complainant throughout his 3 years of tenancy with them. They stated that they considered him to be a good tenant, and therefore they overlooked minor breaches of the contract made by the tenant himself. They submitted that the fact that they recommended him for work, and paid him for work on his own house, was evidence of this good relationship. They also submitted that they found the complainant's English to be good in all their communication with him. They stated near the end of the tenancy, the complainant's representative visited the house and made a list of things which were wrong with it. This representative announced that the complainant's English was not good enough to deal with the tenancy termination and therefore all discussions should go through them. The respondent submitted that in the last few days before the complainant moved out, they received many phone calls from this representative and they found the tone of these calls were becoming increasingly intimidating. They would have preferred to explain directly to the complainant, rather than to his representative, that he was free to move out on the Saturday as planned and that they would do the inspection the following week.
3.6 The respondent submitted that all the issues raised in this complaint were also unsuccessfully raised before the PRTB and that the Equality Tribunal was not the appropriate forum.
3.7 Finally the respondent submitted that the majority of their clients are non-nationals and they strongly object to this spurious claim which may damage their reputation.
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 The Equality Officer must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainant. Section 38(A) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2008 sets out the burden of proof which applies in a claim of discrimination. It 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. 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.
4.2 The complainant submitted, both in oral and written evidence, a detailed list of issues which he had with his accommodation. During the hearing, he was asked why these issues were not raised before the PRTB, as the more appropriate venue. His representative submitted that they had lost their case at the PRTB and they felt there was discrimination involved. I do not propose to consider the evidence relating to the condition of the accommodation further. I find that even if I take the complainant's case at his absolute height, there is nothing whatsoever in this snag list to make out a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of race.
4.3 Regarding the issue of the rent, I fully accept the respondent's submission that rents are market -driven and negotiable and that the next tenant happened to move in at a time when the rates were lower. A successful complaint of discrimination requires more than just a difference in race; there must be some connection between the difference in race and the difference in treatment, in this case a lower rent. In this case, I find that the complainant has established no connection whatsoever.
4.4 The complainant has complained that as a result of the respondent's refusal to visit his house for a final inspection on the Saturday he moved out, he incurred the financial penalty of changing his travel plans. I accept that the complainant did this out of a genuine concern about leaving the house unoccupied without an alarm. However I find on the balance of probabilities that the respondent did try to communicate to the complainant, that he did not need to wait in the house and that it was in fact normal procedure for the final inspection to take place a couple of days later. Therefore it appears to me that there was no reason for the complainant not to move out as planned on the Saturday and to maintain his original travel plans. It is regrettable that the representative for the complainant appeared to take such an adversarial approach to communicating with the respondent, thus leading to a breakdown in communications between the parties.
4.5 The complainant has complained that the respondent did not accept his representative and that this amounted to discrimination on the grounds of race because he was disadvantaged in the discussions surrounding the termination of his tenancy, as his English was not fluent. However I find that the respondent did initially try to communicate with his representative, but then refused when they found them too difficult to deal with. Additionally they argued that they had successfully communicated with the complainant for the previous 3 years. Finally I note that the full deposit was returned to the complainant, so he was not in fact disadvantaged by their reluctance to deal with his representative.
5. Decision
5.1 On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case and I therefore find in favour of the respondent.
________________
Elaine Cassidy,
Equality Officer
23 November 2011