ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00002816
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Tenant | A Landlord |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00003884-001 | 16/04/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/02/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Location of Hearing: Room 4.02 Lansdowne House
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.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant saw a property advertised for rental on a number of property websites which had an accompanying message that ‘Rent Allowance’ was not accepted. He submitted a copy of both advertisements at the hearing. The complainant was in receipt of rent allowance. On February 2nd 2016 he telephoned and spoke to the respondent who confirmed that he would not accept as a tenant a person who was on rent allowance. He followed this up with a letter to the respondent and he provided proof of posting of this letter. There was no response from the respondent. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing nor did he offer any explanation for his failure to do so. |
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.
It is a matter of some surprise and concern that property websites should have continued to permit advertisers to persist with discriminatory advertising, although the incident which gave rise to this case was a matter of weeks after the legislative change came into effect. I find that the respondent did discriminate against the complainant. |
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-00003884-001 and award the complainant €500. |
Dated: 8th May 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Discrimination, Equal Status Act, Rent allowance |