Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Olumide Smith

Smith Harrington Limited

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00011160-001

27/04/2017

The complainant referred a complaint against the above respondent on the 27th of April 2017. He submits that the respondent discriminated against him and harassed him on grounds of race and on the Housing Assistance ground, when he was not permitted to view a property for rent by the respondent with a view to renting said property.

The complainant submits that

the respondent failed to provide him with an equal opportunity to progress his application for tenancy beyond his initial contact with the said Respondent,

the respondent denied him goods/services after asking him for information in respect of his capability to pay Rent by asking for an employer’s reference,

the Respondent discriminated against him on the HAP ground as he is in receipt of the Housing Assistance payment and also in relation to his racial or ethnic origin as the complainant is a person of the Yoruba racial or ethnic origin.

The respondent submits that

they received a query from the complainant in respect of viewing a property in February 2017,

the respondent asked the complainant to provide a previous landlord/employer reference prior to viewing as is standard procedure with all initial queries,

three other parties were further along in the process of seeking to rent the property by the time the complainant sought a viewing,

these three parties had submitted applications after viewing the property and had filled in their application to rent,

one of these three parties was successful in their application to rent the property and so the property went ‘let agreed’ before the complainant had a viewed it,

the successful applicant in this case was in receipt of the HAP scheme.

The issues for determination in this complaint is whether the Respondent discriminated against and or harassed the Complainant on the ground of race and/or on the ‘housing assistance ground’ contrary to Sections 3, 5 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended), in relation to his application to view a property for rent.

Discrimination

Section 3(1) provides: “For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur— (a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which— (i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,”

Section3(2) provides:

“(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:…

(h) that they are of a different race colour nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),”.

Section 3(3B) 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”).”

Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended provides: “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. Section 6(1A) provides: “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.”

Section 38A of the Acts applies to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

The complainant advised the hearing that he applied to the respondent on 19th of February 2017 to view a particular property with a view to renting said property.  The complainant went on to state that he then received a response from the respondent asking him to provide a previous landlord reference and an employer’s character reference prior to viewing any of their rental properties. The respondent reply also stated that they would arrange a viewing once the references were received.

The complainant told the hearing that he had replied to the respondent providing a previous landlords reference and indicating that he was in receipt of the HAP Scheme which would pay his rent, as well as a weekly Jobseekers allowance from the Department of Social Welfare. The complainant submits that he provided this information on the 20th of February 2017 and was advised by the respondent on 21st of February 2017 that the property had gone ‘let agreed’.   The complainant submits that the respondent did not permit him to view the property due to his race and due to the fact that he was in receipt of the HAP Scheme.

The respondent advised the hearing that it had received a query from the complainant on the 19th of February 2017 in respect of viewing a property.

The respondent told the hearing that its lettings manager Ms. C replied to the complainant on 20th of February 2017 asking him to provide a previous landlord or employer reference prior to viewing as is the standard response with all new enquiries on a residential letting.

The respondent advised the hearing that the next step in its standard procedure is that following the viewing the applicant is then invited to submit an application in full which is then forwarded to the landlord for their decision in respect of the selection of a tenant. The respondent stated that once an instruction is received back from the landlord the property is taken off the market and this is then communicated to all parties who expressed an interest in the property.

The respondent told the hearing that the complainant submitted his reference information to them on the 20th of February 2017. The respondent told the hearing that the reference information submitted by the complainant met its requirements and stated that it had no problem or issue with the information submitted by the complainant.  

The respondent advised the hearing that other viewings of the property in question had already taken place and stated that three other parties were further along in the process by the time the complainant sought a viewing. The respondent advised the hearing that these three parties had submitted applications after viewing the property and had filled in their applications to rent.   The respondent told the hearing that these three applications had been forwarded to the landlord on the 20th of February. The respondent told the hearing that of these three applications two were on the HAP scheme.

The respondent advised the hearing that they received an instruction from the landlord to rent the property to one of these applicants.   This instruction was received at 22.37 on the 20th of February 2017.  The respondent stated that the email from the landlord was seen by the respondent the next morning on 21st of February 2017 and that Ms. C of the respondent replied to the complainant at 9.58 am and wrote to the other two unsuccessful applicants advising them that the property was now ‘let agreed’.

The respondent told the hearing that only reason the complainant was not given the chance to see the property was because others were further along in the process than the complainant by the time he sought a viewing and that the property had gone let agreed before the complainant had a chance to view it.  

The respondent told the hearing that the complainants race and or the fact that he was in receipt of the HAP scheme had nothing to do with the fact that the property had gone ‘let agreed’ before he got to view it.   The respondent went on to state that it has rented properties to tenants of all ethnic backgrounds and to many people on the HAP scheme. The respondent told the hearing that the successful applicant in this case was in receipt of the HAP scheme.

The respondent provided the Commission with documentary evidence of emails and substantial documentation in support of its submission that others were further along the tenancy process by the time the complainant applied to view the property and by the time he had provided his references.

The respondent also told the hearing that this property had first gone live on 16th of January and had been ‘let agreed’ on 27th of January but stated that the tenancy fell through and so the property had to be re-advertised and further viewings arranged in February. The respondent provided a detailed timeline of events and documentation in support of this.

The detailed timeline and supporting documentation and emails submitted by the respondent support the respondent’s position that other applicants were further along in the process by the time the complainant expressed an interest in viewing the property and by the time he submitted his references and that the property had gone ‘let agreed’ before he had a chance to view it.  

The complainant has also submitted that the respondent had discriminated against him on the ground of race. The complainant told the hearing that it would have been clear to the respondent from looking at the complainant’s first name on his email query, that he was not Irish. The complainant at the hearing appeared to be asserting that the respondent would not have asked for so much information if he was Irish.   The respondent told the hearing that it is its standard practice to request a landlord’s reference or a previous employers reference from all prospective tenants before arranging a viewing, irrespective of the applicant’s race.  I am satisfied from the evidence adduced that this is the case.   The respondent also told the hearing that the reference information submitted by the complainant met its requirements and stated that it had no problem or issue with the information submitted by the complainant.    

Accordingly, I am satisfied from the totality of the evidence adduced that the complainant was not discriminated against and was not harassed by the respondent on the race ground and/or on the Housing Assistance ground.

I find that the complainant was not discriminated against and was not harassed by the respondent on the race ground and/or on the Housing Assistance ground.