EQUAL STATUS ACTS 2000-2015
Decision DEC – S2016 – 010
PARTIES
Ms Paulina Wilkocka (represented by Rostra Solicitors)
and
AXA Insurance (represented by Mr Conor Power, S.C., instructed by the respondent’s in-house legal team)
File Reference: et-158110-es-15
Date of Issue: 5th February 2016
Keywords: Notification – S. 21(2) – no evidence requirement was properly complied with – no jurisdiction.
1. Claim
1.1. The case concerns a claim by Ms Paulina Wilkocka, that AXA Insurance Ltd discriminated against her on the ground of race contrary to Section 3(2)(g) of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011, in terms of providing her with two different online motor insurance quotes, of which the quote for a driver with an Irish driving license was substantially cheaper.
1.2. The complainant referred a complaint under the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2011 to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on 21 July 2015. A submission was received from the complainant on 25 November 2015. A submission was received from the respondent on 12 January 2016. On 15 January 2016, in accordance with his powers under S. 25 of the Acts, the Director General delegated the case to me, Stephen Bonnlander, an Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director General under Part III of the Acts. On this date my investigation commenced. As required by Section 25(1) of the Acts and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to hold a joint hearing of the case on 4 February 2016.
2. Summary of the Complainant’s Written Submission
2.1. The complainant is a Polish national who has lived in Ireland since 2005. She holds a Polish driving licence, and has a five-year no-claims discount. She applied online for car insurance with the respondent on 19 June 2015. She states that when she indicated online that she held a full Irish driving licence, the resulting quote was substantially cheaper. She states that she then took out a policy of insurance from a different insurer who did not give different quotes for holders of Irish and EU licenses. She submits that the difference in quotes amounts to indirect discrimination on the ground of race.
2.2. The complainant further argues that the respondent indirectly hinders the free movement of workers enshrined in the EU treaties.
3. Summary of the Respondent’s Written Submission
3.1. The respondent denies that it discriminated against the complainant on the ground of her nationality. It notes that some insurance companies do not quote holders of non-Irish driving licenses for motor insurance at all, whereas it does.
3.2. The respondent also claims that it never received the notification required under S. 21 of the Equal Status Acts because the complainant’s solicitor sent it to the wrong email address. The respondent submits that the complaint should be dismissed for this reason alone.
3.3. In terms of the substantive complaint, the respondent asserts that a customer’s nationality has no bearing on their motor insurance quote. It asserts that the price differential based on the place of issue of the customer’s driving licence is based on actuarial data. It also notes that the complainant could have easily exchanged her existing driving licence for an Irish one, but chose not to do so. It states that the complainant has not made out any case of less favourable treatment on the ground of nationality.
4. Conclusions of the Equality Officer
Preliminary issue: Notification
4.1. The preliminary issue for decision in this case is whether the respondent was properly notified of the complaint by the complainant’s solicitor, within two months of the conduct complained of, pursuant to the complainant’s obligations set out in S. 21 (2) of the Acts. The relevant respondent witnesses denied that either an email or a letter to this effect was received within that time frame, and the complainant’s solicitor accepted that he had no email or posting receipts to prove notification was properly served.
4.2. From the evidence given by the parties, I cannot be satisfied that the notification requirements set out in S. 21(2) were complied with, and accordingly I find that the Commission has no jurisdiction to investigate the within complaint.
5. Decision
5.1 Based on all of the foregoing, I find, pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to investigate this matter, due to lack of evidence that the notification requirements set out in S. 21(2) of the Acts were properly complied with.
______________________
Stephen Bonnlander
Equality Officer
5 February 2016