THE EQUALITY TRIBUNAL
EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2011
Decision No. DEC-S2015-010
Jurijs Kozlovs
-v-
Galway City Council
File Reference: ES/2012/0135
Date of Issue: 17th July 2015
Key words:
Equal Status Acts, Race, Gender, Family Status, Emergency homeless,
1. Delegation under the relevant legislation
1.1This case concerns a complaint by Mr Jurijs Kozlovs that he was discriminated against by Galway City Council on the grounds of gender, race (he is a Russian speaking Latvian) and family status. On 4th October 2012, the complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts 2000-2012 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Acts’]. On 29th August 2014, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts 1998 -2012 and under the Acts the Director delegated the case to me, Orlaith Mannion, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under Part III of the Acts. My investigation commenced on this date.
1.2 As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hearing on 22nd September 2014.
Summary of the Complainant’s Case
2.1 The complainant was evicted from private rented accommodation, which he shared with his teenage son, due to arrears of rent in May 2012. He presented to the Galway City Council offices and was provided with emergency homeless accommodation - hotel accommodation for 18 nights. He said he would prefer an apartment as he and his son had to leave each day while housekeeping cleaned the room. He said that if he had been a mother an apartment would have been provided.
2.2 Mr Kozlovs and his son had to leave the hotel just when they were beginning to settle there as the hotel was fully booked up. He submits that this is discrimination on the grounds of race as it would not happen to an Irish person.
2.3 The Council showed him an apartment in Doughiska, which he submits, is the ‘wrong part of town’ .Mr Kozlovs said that it was dirty and smelly and there were ‘undesirables’ living in the area. He subsequently found private rented accommodation himself. He submits that an Irish person would not be offered accommodation in such an area.
2.4 Mr Kozlovs found private rented accommodation himself. However, this did not work out and he presented himself again at the City Council’s offices on 6th July. He was no longer deemed emergency homeless as the Department of Social Protection had informed the Council that he and his son were co-habiting with his partner. Mr Kozlovs said that this was not the truth.
2.5 He acknowledges that he became irate. The council official he was speaking to offered that the council would provide a train ticket to Dublin where he could attend his embassy. He submits that this is very patronising and would not be said to an Irish person.
2.6 He has subsequently found accommodation with no thanks to the City Council.
Summary of the Respondent’s Case
3.1 The respondent states that Mr Kozlovs and his son were immediately installed into a good three star hotel with swimming pool and stayed there for almost three weeks at taxpayers’ expense. They submit that he and his son enjoyed better accommodation than many people presenting themselves as emergency homeless did.
3.2 The hotel rents the rooms to the Council at a preferential rate and reserves the right to ask the Council to move people if more lucrative bookings emerge. When this happened, the respondent states that the complainant is correct that they showed him a property in Doughiska for long-term rental. They utterly refute that the accommodation was in a state of disrepair. It was part of the Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS). RAS is an initiative by the Government to cater for the accommodation needs of certain people in receipt of rent supplement, who are assessed as having a long-term housing need. It is in the Council’s interest to make sure the property is in good repair as they pay the rent for a suitable tenant for four years. They do not show inappropriate properties as they want both the tenant and landlord to be content with the arrangement for at least four years. The next person who saw that property eagerly accepted it. The Council refutes that Dougiska is an undesirable area to live in. Neither crime nor anti-social behaviour is high in this. It also enjoys a good bus service unlike many suburbs of Galway. The respondent stated that the complainant had said to them that he did not want to live in this area because of the amount of ‘ethnics’ living there. The respondent points out that the complainant has taken this case inter alia on the ground of race.
3.2 The Council maintains that he and his son returned to live with his partner (and mother of his child) after their break in the hotel. Because of this the Department of Social Welfare stopped his payment for One Parent Family Allowance as a Social Welfare Inspector found evidence that he was living with his partner. There was evidence of a woman residing at the address from where he claimed the OFP payment, he was seen collecting her from work and they were seen socialising together. An offer to provide financial support to assist the complainant in getting consular assistance the respondent submits cannot be categorised as discrimination on the grounds of race.
3.3 The respondent also requests the Tribunal to note that the complainant was granted an adjournment of this Tribunal hearing in June because he was on holidays in Oslo – one of the most expensive cities in Europe. For all of these reasons, Mr Kozlovs is no longer deemed emergency homeless
Conclusions of the Equality Officer
4.1 Section 38(A) of the Equal Status Acts 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. In deciding on this complaint, therefore, I must first consider whether the existence of a prima facie case has been established by the complainant. 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 making my decision in this case, I have taken cognisance of all the oral and written submissions made by the parties. The issue for me to decide is was the complainant discriminated against on the grounds of disability and age.
4.2 Generally, I preferred the evidence of the respondent. I accept the respondent’s contention that the complainant and his son were put in very good accommodation at a time of housing crisis. In fact, both the complainant and the respondent were in agreement that mothers with children were installed in less salubrious accommodation. The definition of discrimination in the Acts refers to where a person is treated less favourably than somebody else in a comparable situation is. As the complainant has failed to prove detriment, he cannot establish a prima facie case on any of the grounds cited in relation to the events outlined in Paragraph 2.1 and 3.1.
4.3 Furthermore, the respondent provided cogent evidence that hotel accommodation is a temporary solution to emergency homelessness. The primary aim of the hotel is to make a profit. Galway is a city that thrives on tourism and if the hotel can earn more from other guests, it is entitled to do so. It must also be remembered that the hotel in question is not the respondent in this case. After almost three weeks in the hotel, the respondent in this instant case offered the complainant, suitable long-term accommodation but he refused it. I accept the respondent’s evidence that he was not discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race or family status in the accommodation that he was offered. In fact, it was an Irish mother of one child that subsequently was very happy to accept the apartment shown to him. Galway City Council gave evidence that other alternatives would have been found for Mr Kozlovs but he was able to source accommodation himself. Therefore, no prima facie case of discrimination on any of the grounds cited has been established in relation to events described in Paragraphs 2.3 to 2.4 and 3.2.
4.4 Again, I accept the respondent’s contention that offering to financially support the seeking of consular assistance to be good public service rather than discrimination on the grounds of race. In an era where there is a greater appetite for joined-up government, the respondent is entitled to rely on the information of the Department of Social Protection that Mr Kozlovs was cohabiting with the mother of his son and therefore no longer in need of emergency accommodation. The respondent has a duty to protect the Exchequer from fraudulent claims for accommodation. The Council also expect prospective tenants to provide evidence that they will be able to pay a small contribution towards rent. In the absence of gainful employment or a Social Welfare payment other than Children’s allowance, Mr Kozlovs was unable to do so. Therefore, the complainant has failed to establish discrimination on the grounds of gender, race or family status in relation to the events in Paragraphs 2.4 to 2.6 and 3.2.
Decision
5.1 In accordance with Section 25(4) of these Acts, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision:
that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of race
the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of family status
the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the ground of gender
Therefore, I find against the complainant.
____________________
Orlaith Mannion
Equality Officer