ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006705
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Complainant | Respondent |
Representatives | In person | In person |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00007390-001 | 04/10/2016 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
Case under the Equal Status Acts 2000 where an advert placed by the Respondent referred to “Rent allowance not accepted” |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
In February 2016 the Complainant was discriminated against by being prevented from applying for a house on the grounds that he was in receipt of rent allowance. During a telephone call with the Respondent, an agent of the Respondent repeated the discrimination by confirming that the house was not available to persons in receipt of rent allowance. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The house that was advertised was an old advert. This house was not available to rent in February 2016 so the Complainant could not have been prevented from applying to rent it. By February 2016 the house had been sold to a long term sitting tenant of the house. The complaint form to the WRC issued in April 2016 at which stage there had been no communication between the Appellant and the Respondent so any allegation of discriminatory conduct via a telephone communication before the complaint was made to the WRC, is denied. Indeed no such claim was made in the complaint form. It was only after the Complainant received advice (that in order to succeed he must have been effected by the discriminatory statement, as opposed to merely seeing a discriminatory statement in an advert) that he changed his complaint to allege that during a phone call with the Respondent that he was refused the house on the basis of being, in receipt of, rent allowance. This conversation is denied and, as already stated, the house was not available for rent, having been sold. All allegations of breaches under the Equal Status Act 2000 are denied. |
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.
The claim is based on an advert for a house rental in Shannon, Co. Clare which was placed on a property website. The advert stated “rental allowance not accepted.” This advert was on the website in February 2016.
The Respondents deny that the house was available for rent in February 2016 as it had been sold to a tenant that had been living there for a number of years previously. Furthermore they deny telling the Complainant that he was not eligible to rent the house due to him being in receipt of rent allowance.
The Complainant lives in Dublin. At the hearing, as part of the Adjudicator’s investigation a number of questions were put to the Complainant.
The Complainant would not provide any reasons as to why he wanted to move from his current address in Dublin other than citing personal reasons and stating that it was his constitutional right to move freely around the country.
When asked by the Adjudicator if he could recall the location of the house that he was seeking to rent, he could neither recall the county or the region of the country that it was located. He could not answer if there were public transport links there or what the nearest large urban area was. For this Adjudicator this cast doubts on his credibility.
After re-reading his complaint form he remembered that the house was located in Shannon.
The Complainant was then asked to recall when the telephone conversation with the Respondent took place. He was asked to do so without considering his written submission. This was requested by the Adjudicator in order to test the credibility of the Complainant’s evidence. The Complainant took exception to this and left the hearing without presenting his case. This was despite being told by the Adjudicator that if he failed to remain and prosecute his case that his case would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The Complainant left the hearing.
Consequently this case fails for want of prosecution.
|
Dated: 17 November 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Key Words:
|