EQUAL STATUS ACTS
DECISION NO. DEC-S2017-005
PARTIES
Marius Nistor
AND
No Nonsense Insurance
File reference: ES/2014/0117
Date of issue: 8 February 2017
HEADNOTES: Equal Status Act – Discrimination in provision of services- race/nationality
1. DISPUTE
1.1 This dispute concerns a claim by Marius Nistor that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the grounds of his nationality/race 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 June 17th 2014 under the Equal Status Act. On 10 January 2017 in accordance with her powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, the Director General of the Workplace Relations Commission 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 January 17th 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.
2.COMPLAINANT’S SUBMISSION
2.1 The complainant is a Romanian national and he was planning to drive to Romania.
2.2 He rang the respondent seeking to transfer his insurance to a second vehicle and also to ensure that the cover would be extended to cover his proposed trip to Romania.
2.3 There were two telephone calls made to the respondent on March 10th 2014. In the course of the first he says he was told by the respondent that this cover could be provided, but was also told that no new certificate would issue and that he should transfer the certificate from his first car. This call was interrupted by technical failure and when he telephoned some hours late he was given different information to the effect that the proposed cover of a second vehicle for the particular purpose was not possible.
2.4 This information was repeated in response to an email from the complainant later the same day.
2.5 He contacted the industry representative body which took the matter up and in due course as a result of its intervention he was offered cover but this was inadequate for the purpose of his trip.
2.6 He submits that the position changed once his nationality became clear and that this was the reason he was denied cover.
3. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION
3.1 The respondent says that the complainant’s nationality had no bearing on its decision in relation to the cover it offered and that while it had been aware that the destination of the proposed trip was Romania it did not know, at the time of the inquiry, that the complainant was a Romanian national.
3.2 The insurance product under which the complainant’s first car was insured was described as a ‘stripped down’, i.e. basic or budget product. If he had wished to extend the cover on his first car this could have been accommodated on the basis of the payment of an additional premium, but it could not, under the conditions of the policy be extended to a second vehicle insured on the same policy.
3.3 The initial information given to the complainant in the first telephone call was incorrect and the respondent expressed its regretted for this but when he made the second call later this was corrected. The policy does not provide for extending temporary cover on a second vehicle which will be driven outside Ireland or the UK.
3.4 The respondent accepts that a number of questions to which he took objection were asked of the complainant but purely for the purpose of building up the information it needed to establish the risk and whether it could underwrite it.
3.5 Finally, the respondent says that neither the complainant’s nationality or his destination were factors in its decision which was fully based on the restrictions on the policy. Because of the very low margins at which these policies were offered they were not viable and have, in fact, been discontinued under the previous branding.
4.CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS
4.1 The respondent exhibited in evidence a copy of the relevant policy which outlined the basis on which cover could be extended on a main vehicle. Under the heading ‘Going abroad with the car’ it outlines the nature of the cover and I accept the evidence of the respondent that this relates to what is described (in bold) on the policy as the ‘insured car’.
4.2 The unusual feature of the complainant’s case is that he was seeking to insure a second car, not the ‘insured car’, and to do so for the purposes of a trip for which the company did not provide cover on a second car. The complainant explained his reasons for wishing to get this particular cover, and while this was a matter for him, it clearly lay outside the ambit of the respondent’s policy cover.
4.3 I find therefore that the decision was a purely commercial decision based purely on its normal business criteria and not one related to the complainant’s race or nationality and his complaint is unfounded.
5. DECISION
5.1 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.
5.2 Accordingly I dismiss the complaint.
__________________
Pat Brady
Adjudication Officer/Equality Officer
8 February 2017