ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007989
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Olumide Smith | Marc Copeland |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties |
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-00010652-001 | 30/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/08/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and following the presentation by a complainant of a complaint of a contravention by a service provider of an Act contained in Schedule 5 of the Workplace Relations Act of 2015 or such other act as may be referred to in the 2015 Act, made to the Director General and following a referral by the said Director General of this matter to the Adjudication services, I can confirm that I have fulfilled my obligation to make all relevant inquiries into the complaint or dispute. I have additionally and where appropriate heard the oral evidence of the parties and their witnesses and have taken account of the evidence tendered in the course of the hearing.
The Complainant herein has referred a matter for dispute resolution Section 25 Equal Status Act, 2000 and the referral has been made within six months of the initial circumstances of the relevant contravention.
The complainant withdrew ADJ 7991 and ADJ 7992.
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant stated that for personal reasons he wished to move from the home he was renting in Balbriggan to a different home in a different area of the City. He saw an advertisement on line for a three bed property in the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown district. He clicked the button indicating he would like to view the property. This occurred on the 16th February, 2017. The respondent e-mailed the complainant on the 16th at 09.57 stating:
“ The property is for sale and the lease would only be 6/8 weeks per the ad – are you ok with this?”
Complainant: “ Yes, although if the new owner is happy with renting it to me I may be able to keep it longer that 22 months”
Respondent : “ I will have no contact with the new owner but they will be moving in after the 8 weeks”
Complainant: “No problem, can I view the property today?”
Respondent: “ Are you ok with a deposit and a month’s rent in advance
Complainant: “ Yes”
Respondent: “ Can you give me some information on you and who will be renting with you?”
Complainant: “It is for a family of four i.e 1 adult + 3 children. I am in receipt of Housing Assistance Payment ( HAP) which can conveniently pay the stated rent, and jobseekers weekly payment form the Department of Social Welfare.
Respondent “ Thanks for the details. But I definitely do not want to get into a social welfare scheme for a 6 weeks lease. It is way too much hassle”
Complainant:” It is not Social Welfare that will pay the rent. According to paragraph 3 of the attached letter from the Dublin City Council: Any rent from the date the tenant overs in will be paid to the landlord once the HAP application from has been processed. Normally rent would only be paid from the processing date. Once the small amount of paperwork is submitted, the form is processed within 2-3 days. It is the Dublin City Council that will pay you your rent directly. Any thoughts on your final decision to allow me to view your property and progress this application to your final decision to offer me the tenancy.
Respondent: “ HAP is a social welfare scheme, correct ? Honestly, I have other potential tenants with references coming this evening with a deposit & can rent the property and move in by Sunday with no paperwork required”
Complainant “ No please, HAP is not a social welfare scheme”
Respondent “ It is a social housing scheme, so I will not be accepting”
Complainant “ Acknowledging your frank response but refusing to accept tenants because of rent allowance is now illegal: As of 1st January, 2016, the Equality ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2015 has introduced “ housing assistance” as a new discriminatory ground. This means that people in receipt of rent supplement, housing assistance payments or other social welfare payments can no longer be discriminated against in relation to the provisions of accommodation or related services or amenities” Please refer to the attached reference, Any thoughts ?”
Respondent: “ Your tone has now become threatening – your emails will now be blocked”
Complainant: “ Please what is your racial or ethnic origin? Mine is Yoruba.
He then phoned the company the respondent worked for and asked to be put through to the respondent. He left a voice mail indicating he was intending to bring a claim to the WRC.
The complainant produced evidence sating that he was eligible for HAP in the amount of € 1,450 up to a maximum of € 2,000 in relation to the Dun laoghaire/Rathdown area. He also stated that they would pay the rent and the deposit directly to the Landlord and that the Landlord had very little paperwork to do. He also stated that the payment would be processed within 2- 3 days.
The complainant stated that he deemed the last e-mail from the respondent to be harassment.
The complainant stated, when asked why he wanted to move with his family out of his current accommodation into a property where he could only stay for six weeks, that he did not want to disclose his personal circumstances to the people present at the hearing. He stated that he was eligible for HAP and wanted to move to a new area with his three children. He also stated that any other claims he had with the WRC should not have a bearing on this claim. This claim was specifically against this respondent on Race, Housing Assistance and Harassment grounds and should be judged on its merits.
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent owned the subject property with his sister. They had fallen behind with their mortgage payments and management fees. Following negotiations with the Bank, it was agreed that the property would be sold and the proceeds of sale would be used to clear the arrears and the remaining mortgage. The property was put on the market in December, 2016. There were several offers in December 2015 and January, 2016 and the property was “Sale Agreed” on the 20th February. The tenant who was renting the house moved out in January, 2016. The respondent was anxious to get short term tenants into the house to cover the last month or two of the mortgage payments. He advertised it on a third party website and used his work e-mail for correspondence purposes.
The respondent had rented to individuals in the past who were on a rent allowance scheme. He was familiar with the process. His experience was that there were delays of up to six weeks before the first payment was made.
He was under financial pressure at the time, the property was being sold to clear arrears in mortgage and this lease was only for six weeks. He received an e-mail at 7am on the 15th February from a potential tenant. This potential tenant had sold his house and needed a short term let until his new property was ready. He had references and a deposit and was due to meet with the respondent on the 16th after work. He did meet with him and moved into the house three days later. He stayed for six weeks.
The respondent stated that he found the complainant’s e-mails threatening and that is why he blocked him. He wasn’t aware of the two e-mails that were sent on the 16th after he blocked them until he received a call from HR stating that they had received an e-mail in relation to a possible claim.
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant stated that the local authority would pay the rent and the deposit directly to the Landlord. That is factually incorrect. As is set out on the HAP website “If your landlord requires a deposit, you will have to pay this yourself – the local authority will not pay it for you. In some circumstances, you may be eligible to apply for assistance from the Department of Social Protection to help with paying a deposit” The complainant also stated that he wanted to move out of his current accommodation into the respondent’s apartment albeit only for a six week period. However, those in receipt of HAP are required, save in certain specific circumstances to remain in the property for a period of two years. “You will be expected to stay in your HAP accommodation for at least 2 years, but in some situations you may be able to apply for a new HAP payment elsewhere – for example, if you are offered a job in another town or if your family grows too large for the property. You will need to contact your local authority if you are thinking of moving” The complainant was guarded when asked why he was moving from his current accommodation. No evidence was adduced that he had to move due to termination of his current tenancy or anything of that nature. He simply said he wanted to move for personal reasons. The complainant was living in Balbriggan at the material time. He has three children. It is simply not credible, particularly in circumstances were the HAP was not applicable, that he wanted to move out of his home and move his children out of their school, to set up a home in Cherrywood in Dublin 18 for a six week period, when he could stay in the accommodation he was renting in Balbriggan with the assistance of the HAP and with no disruption for his children. In circumstances where this six week lease did not meet the requirements for the HAP, no evidence was adduced in relation to the complainant having the deposit available and in the absence of any credible explanation as to why he wanted to move out of his current HAP applicable accommodation in Balbriggan to the other side of the city, I find that the complainant had no real intention of renting the respondent’s accommodation. It is on that basis that I find that the Complainant was not in fact availing of a service within the meaning of the Equal Status Acts and that his complaint is contrived and disingenuous. In relation to the provision of services, Section6 (1)” A person shall not discriminate in— (c) providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities”. In circumstances where the complainant had no intention of availing of the service, the subject matter of his complaint, he cannot rely on that provision of the Act. No evidence was adduced in relation to the complainant’s ‘race’ claim. In relation to the complainant’s harassment claim, he stated that the emailed which stated “Your tone has now become threatening – your emails will now be blocked” he considered to be harassment. No further evidence was adduced in relation to the matter. It is on that basis that I find that the complainant is not well founded.
|
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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 find that the complainant has not established a prima facia case of discrimination on grounds of race or housing assistance and accordingly I dismiss the claim.
I find that the complainant’s evidence did not meet the legal requirements to establish a complaint of harassment and accordingly I dismiss the claim.
Dated: 3rd November 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Niamh O'Carroll Kelly
Key Words: