ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00003291

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/05/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

Background:

The Complainant submitted that he had been discriminated against by a person, organisation/company who provides goods, services or facilities.

The Complainant is of a non-Irish background and was in receipt of rent allowance at the time of the events leading to his complaint. The Respondent is a fully licensed estate agent who has been in business for more than 10 years. The Respondent lets and/or manages over 160 properties.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

In oral evidence the Complainant stated that on 13^th January 2016 he was browsing the web looking at websites which advertise accommodation. He saw a particular flat which suited his requirements and so he called the agency handling the matter as mentioned on the advertisement, hoping to make an appointment for a viewing.

When his call was answered he was asked, "Are you a student or working?" to which he replied, "I'm not working, I'm on Rent Allowance." The Complainant alleged that when he said this the person on the other end of the line responded by saying, "No, we don't take people on rent allowance for this accommodation; it says so on the ad." The person then hung up abruptly.

The Complainant stated that he felt humiliated. The Complainant sought advice from a number of organisations and decided to submit a complaint to the WRC.

The Complainant stated that he subsequently sent the Respondent a Form ES.1, however there was no response to the ES.1 by the Respondent. The Complainant submitted an An Post Item Delivery Record which purportedly had been signed by the Respondent.

The Complainant submitted a copy of the internet advertisement for the property in question which had a line on it reading, "Rent allowance not accepted".

In summary the Complainant stated that he had been discriminated against by being in receipt of rent allowance and because of his race.

In questioning the Complainant re-iterated the dialogue that took place when he called the agent.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent submitted that the property, of which the flat in question is part, is mainly let on a short-term basis and there is a great mix of tenants of all different nationalities in each of the 10 rooms. The owner/client has instructed the Respondent that he only wants temporary tenants and wants to focus on short-term leases in the future.

The property is let on a short-term basis and the Respondent concentrates on foreign nationals moving over to Dublin who want a base for 3-6 months. The Respondent submitted that there are a number of tenants in the property on social welfare.

The respondent submitted that no one "is discriminated against when applying for applying (sic) for a room in this property, yet social welfare is normally a long-term contract and this does not suit us."

In addition the Complainant submitted that the advertisement in question was re-activated only 13 days after the amendment to the Act came into force. Due to human error the "No rent allowance/social welfare" tag, which had been on the advertisement previously, was not removed.

In oral evidence the Respondent stated that he was insulted that he was being accused of discrimination. He stated that 80% of the residents in the property are non-nationals. He was adamant that he would not discriminate on race grounds.

He also stated the woman who runs the Lettings Team, who would most probably have taken the phone called referred to by the Complainant is very experienced and would never be rude to anyone, particularly as this is a service industry. The fact that the Respondent's office is open plan would reduce the chances of anyone in the office raising their voice or being rude to a customer on the phone.

In response to questioning the Respondent said he had not checked with his staff about the alleged phone call. He also agreed that the signature on the An Post Delivery Record was his but he had no recollection of getting the form. He apologised for not responding to it and said it must have been an oversight.

Findings and Conclusions:

The provision of rental accommodation falls to be considered a service under the Equal Status Acts.

 In addition to the established nine grounds of discrimination in various equality statutes on January 1st 2016, as a result of the enactment of the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015, a landlord cannot discriminate against a person in receipt of rent supplement, housing assistance or any payment under the Social Welfare Acts.

 The amendment provides;

 For the purposes of section 6(1)(c), the discriminatory grounds shall (in addition to the grounds specified in subsection (2)) include the ground that as between any two persons, that one is in receipt of rent supplement (within the meaning of section 6(8)), housing assistance (construed in accordance with Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 ) or any payment under the Social Welfare Acts and the other is not (the “housing assistance ground”).”.

 The tenants’ charity Threshold has also noted that examples of indirect discrimination in advertising may include such terms such as ‘rent supplement not accepted’, ‘professionals only’; refusing to allow a person to view a property or let to them because they are in receipt of rent supplement, housing assistance or other social welfare payment, ending a tenancy or not renewing an agreement because they are in receipt of rent supplement, housing assistance or other social welfare payment.

The advertisement for the property in question included the line "Rent allowance not accepted", which is enough in my view to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Respondent was unable to provide any evidence to rebut the allegation regarding the phone referred to above.

The lack of a response to the ES.1 Form undermines the Respondent's claim that they would not and did not discriminate against persons in receipt of rent allowance.

In the circumstances I find that the respondent did discriminate against the complainant with regard to rent allowance.

From the evidence presented I do not believe the Complainant provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case in relation to his allegation of discrimination grounds of race.

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

I uphold complaint CA-00003571-001 and award the complainant €500.

Dated:   04^th July 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Roger McGrath

Key Words: