EQUAL STATUS ACTS
DECISION NO. DEC-ES2017-015
PARTIES
Peadar Kelly
v
Allied Credit
File reference: ES/2014/0146
Date of issue: 13 April 2017
HEADNOTES: Equal Status Act – Discrimination in provision of services- Age
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Peadar Kelly that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of his age contrary to section 3 of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2004 in relation to the provision of services in terms of section 5 of the Act.
1.2 The complainant referred a claim to the Director of the Equality Tribunal on July 10th 2014 under the Equal Status Act. On February 27th 2017, in accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, the Director delegated the case to me, Pat Brady, an Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer), for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director (General) under Part VII of the Acts, on which date my investigation commenced.
1.3 Submissions were received from both sides. In accordance with Section 25 (4) of the Equal Status Acts and as part of my investigation I proceeded to a hearing on March 14th 2017.
1.4 This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1 October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1 October 2015, in accordance with section 83 (3) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.
Preliminary Issue.
2.1 The complainant says the date of the last incident was sometime in December 2013. His complaint was not formally notified to the then Equality Tribunal until July 7th 2014. The complainant initially made inquiries to the Equality Authority and believed that his complaint had been registered in the system.
2.2 It is not possible to identify with any degree of precision the date of the last alleged act of discrimination. In view of the circumstances, I have decided to give the complainant the benefit of the doubt and I find that his complaint is probably within the time limits, or in any event that there are sufficient grounds for extending it to permit his case to be heard. He believed that his complaint had been registered for a hearing within the time limits.
COMPLAINANT’S SUBMISSION
3.1 The complainant borrowed money about twice a year for a number of years. He had an excellent credit record, made all repayments on the due date and never defaulted.
3.2 Just coming up to Christmas 2013 he intended to renew his loan. However, the employee of the respondent who normally calls to see him failed to do so at the expected time. When he did eventually call he advised the complainant that his request for a loan would have to be processed by the company office.
3.3 When he did so he was given to understand that he would not be getting a loan, and he says that words to the effect that he was ‘bottom of the list’ were used.
3.4 He says that he felt the reason for the refusal of the loan was his age. He was seventy-four years old at the time. He was asked a number of questions in connection with the application which seemed to indicate this.
RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION
4.1 The respondent did not dispute the essential facts set out above.
4.2 However it stated that the sole reason the complainant could not be provided with a loan was that the company did not have funds to enable it to do so. It submitted confidential bank records of the time in support of this showing a very substantial adverse balance. It says that the Christmas period places great demands on its resources and it depends on cash flow to find loans.
4.3 The respondent spoke highly of the complainant as a valued customer and stated that the only reason to deny him a loan was a commercial one. Any questions asked of him were in the nature of routine customer information.
CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS
5.1 I accept the evidence of the respondent in this case. It demonstrated in evidence that it was in excess of a substantial overdraft situation at the material time.
5.2 In addition, the complainant, who as noted above was at the time of the incident which gave rise to the complaint seventy-four years old and had been borrowing twice a year from the respondent for some eight years.
5.3 I am satisfied that on the basis of the evidence the respondent’s decision was purely a commercial decision and the complainant was not denied the relevant service on the basis of his age or in breach of the Equal Status Act. It seems unlikely that the respondent decided that the complainant’s age had suddenly become an impediment to his credit worthiness as there had been no material change as might be associated with a move from active working to retirement, for example.
DECISION
6.1 In accordance with Section 25 (4) of the Equal Status Acts I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision.
That the complainant has failed to establish his case and his complaint fails.
6.2 Accordingly I dismiss the complaint.
__________________
Pat Brady
Adjudication Officer
13 April 2017