Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A prospective tenant

A landlord

Representatives

None

None

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000

CA-00013072-001

10/08/2017

The complainant claims discrimination on the housing assistance ground in not being able to finalise the letting of a dwelling because of his reliance on a form of housing assistance.

In the first week of February 2017, the complainant received a notice of termination from his former landlord on grounds that the landlord wished to sell the dwelling. The tenancy was to end on the 25th July 2017. The complainant looked for alternative accommodation and viewed almost 50 houses. He made enquiries with friends if they knew a landlord who might have a dwelling to let. A friend said that he knew one such landlord. The complainant arranged to meet this landlord and they discussed the letting. The complainant said that he was reliant on housing assistance. On the 9th April 2017, the landlord phoned the complainant to arrange an inspection of the dwelling. The complainant found that the dwelling was a “mess” and the furniture was in poor condition. The landlord said he would replace the furniture. On the 12th April 2017, the landlord called the complainant again and they agreed that the respondent would rent the dwelling to the complainant. They agreed a booking deposit of €500, and the complainant would later have to pay the full deposit of €950 and one month’s rent of €950. The complainant was to move into the dwelling on the 1st May 2017. They then exchanged text messages and the complainant gave notice to his current landlord that he was vacating the dwelling prior to the expiry of the landlord’s notice.

On the 20th April 2017, the respondent telephoned the complainant to say that he was not proceeding with the tenancy. The complainant asked for a reason, but the respondent did not give a reason. The complainant emailed the respondent the following day. The respondent replied, outlining reasons. The first relates to replacing furniture, but the complainant never asked for the furniture to be changed. The discussion related to replacing broken items. The second refers to social welfare forms being “hassle”. The third reason refers to their text messages. The complainant received the booking deposit back some three weeks later.

The complainant had lots of hassle with the current landlord, as he had said that he was moving out on the 1st May 2017. The landlord had arranged to do works in the dwelling on foot of his notice. Another friend was able to introduce him to a different landlord. The complainant explained his situation and this landlord agreed to rent a dwelling to him. He is now paying rent of €800 for a one-bed apartment in a city centre location. The complainant moved into the new dwelling on the 5th July 2017. He wanted to raise what the respondent did as it is contrary to the law of Ireland. The complainant’s wife works part-time in a suburb so the dwelling offered by the respondent would have been more convenient.

The respondent did not attend the adjudication and did not make submissions in reply to the complainant.

On the 12th April 2017, the complainant gave the respondent a booking deposit of €500 to let a dwelling from the 1st May 2017. The respondent emailed the complainant on the 21st April 2017 to indicate that he was not renting the dwelling to the complainant. Included in the reasons was the “hassle” of signing social welfare forms. The complainant served an ES1 form on the respondent on the 2nd June 2017. This is marked “delivered” on the 6th June 2017 and there was no reply from the respondent. The complainant submitted the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on the 1st August 2017.

As amended, section 3B of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 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”).”

As amended, section 6(1) and 6(1A) of the Acts provide:

“6.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in—

(a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises,

(b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or

(c) subject to subsection (1A), providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities.

(1A) Subsection (1)(c) is without prejudice to —

(a) any enactment or rule of law regulating the provision of accommodation, or

(b) the right of a person providing accommodation to make it a condition of the provision of that accommodation that rent supplement is paid directly to that person.”

The respondent was explicit that the complainant’s reliance on social welfare support to pay the rent was part of the reason for withdrawing from the tenancy agreement. This falls squarely within the discrimination the housing assistance ground seeks to address. The complaint is, therefore, well-founded. In assessing loss, I note the unexplained delay in returning the booking deposit of €500, at a time when the complainant required this money in seeking alternative accommodation. I note the inconvenience incurred by the complainant in having to go back to his former landlord to, effectively, renege on vacating the dwelling by a specific date in May 2017. I note that his new accommodation is less convenient, although cheaper. For these reasons, I assess redress for the effects of discrimination at €1,100.

CA-00013072-001

I find that the complaint made pursuant to the Equal Status Acts is well-founded and the respondent shall pay to the complainant redress of €1,100.

Equal Status Act

Housing assistance ground