DECISION DEC-S2012-029
PARTIES
David & Rose Lipper
V
Nenagh Town Council
File No. ES/2011/0107 & ES/2011/0108
Date of Issue: 20 July 2012
Keywords
Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011 - Discrimination, section 3 - disability ground, section 3(2)(g) - Victimisation, section 3(2)(j) - Less favourable treatment, section 6(1) - Period of notification, section 21(2) & (3) - Jurisdiction
1 Delegation under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004
1.1 The complainants referred their claims to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts on 9 August 2011. In accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2011, the Director then delegated the case to me, Conor Stokes, 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. The investigation under section 25 commenced on 16 March 2012. A hearing was scheduled for 12 April 2012.
2 Dispute
2.1 The dispute concerns complaints by Mr & Mrs Lipper that they were treated contrary to section 6(1), and were further victimised by the respondent. The respondent was notified in June 2011 in accordance with the provisions of the Acts.
3. Complainant submissions
3.1 The complainants submitted that they were discriminated against by being given a one-bedroom property to live in from the housing list.
3.2 The complainants submitted that they were subjected to harassment by being contacted by the counsel on a regular basis.
3.3 The complainants submitted that the respondent failed to provide them with reasonable accommodation in that the respondent did not provide them with two-bedroomed accommodation.
3.4 The complainants submitted that the respondent victimised them by continually calling them and not providing them with the type of accommodation that they wanted.
3.5 The complainants submitted that their treatment was based upon the disability ground.
4 Respondent submissions
4.1 The respondent submitted that the complainants accepted a tenancy at a specified location 'X' on 7 June 2006. Thereafter, they indicated their satisfaction with that location to the respondent.
4.2 When the complainant's notified the respondent of an issue with claustrophobia, the respondent gave consideration to the matter and proceeded to offer the complainants a number of other accommodation possibilities, most of these offers were declined.
4.3 The respondent submitted that the complainant's had substantial rent arrears which would normally exclude a tenant from being considered for a transfer. In the specific circumstances of this case the complainant's were offered a transfer which they accepted.
4.4 The respondent submitted that during this process and in order to deal with the issue of arrears of rent a number of attempts were made to contact the complainants
5 Findings
5.1 Oral evidence was presented to the Tribunal by both parties. From that evidence and the documentary evidence presented prior to the hearing, I am satisfied that the following has been established:
- The tenancy at location X began on 7 June 2006
- The complainants did not get to view the property prior to signing their tenancy agreement
- The complainants intentionally ran up rent arrears amounting to approximately two years worth of rent
- The respondents contacted the complainants on a number of occasions to try to recover the unpaid rent
- The complainants took steps to refuse and/or obstruct the delivery of correspondence from the respondent regarding those rent arrears
- The respondents issued the complainants with a notice to quit
- The respondents were notified of the existence of a disability, as defined in the Acts, on 24 March 2009
- The complainants made a complaint to the respondent regarding their rented property and sought an alternative property citing medical advice
- Thereafter the respondent proceeded to offer the complainants five other options for accommodation, each one was refused for a different reason
- The complainants accepted the sixth offer of accommodation and moved out of location X on 2 September 2010
- The complainants confirmed that their complaint was all their dealings with the respondent concerning accommodation in location X
- The notification under Section 21(2) of the Equal Status Acts issued to the respondent on 29 June 2011
- The complaint was made to the Equality Tribunal on 9 august 2011
5.2 Section 21(2) of the Acts provides, inter alia, that the complainant "shall, within 2 months of the prohibited conduct ... notify the respondent in writing of (i) the nature of the allegation, and (ii) the complainant's intention ... to seek redress under this Act ... " Section 21(3) provides, inter alia, that this period may be extended to 4 months.
5.3 In the instant case, the documents submitted prior to the hearing indicated that the discriminatory treatment, harassment, failure to provide reasonable accommodation and victimisation were ongoing. However, during the oral hearing, and in response to the respondent's submissions that the complaint was out of time, the complainants were asked to provide clarification as to what treatment they were complaining of and when it had occurred. The complainants clarified that their complaint "was all about" their time at location X and how they were treated during that period. The tenancy of location X lasted from 7 June 2006 until 2 September 2010. No evidence was given that related to treatment, harassment, failure to provide reasonable accommodation or victimisation outside of that time span. Accordingly, it emerged from the oral testimony given at the hearing that the notification requirements of the Acts were not complied with and the complainants gave no cogent reason when questioned as to why this was the case. Accordingly, I find that as the provisions of Section 21 have not been complied with, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider these matters further.
6 Decision
6.1 Section 21 (2) and (3) set out the obligations with regards to notification periods under the Acts. In this instance these obligations have not been met and accordingly the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the matter further. Therefore, under section 25(4) of the Acts, I conclude this investigation and find in favour of the respondent.
_____________
Conor Stokes
Equality Officer
20 July 2012