Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Rowena Kavanagh

Graham Cahill

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00014791-001

5/Oct/2017

The complainant is claiming that she was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground (‘HAP’) (Section 3(3B) in terms of Section 6(1)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended. She is alleging that the respondent told her that he did not want to deal with housing assistant payment applicants, because of difficulties he had with them in the past, and he served notice to terminate their agreement and told her to move out.

The respondent did not send in any submissions to the Workplace Relations Commission and did not attend the hearing.

The complainants case is that she viewed the property in April 2017 and agreed to a one-year lease commencing on 2 May 2017. The respondent was living in the property adjacent to the rented property, on the same site, using the same driveway. She claims that she was told by the respondent that he would be building a different driveway into his property to give her and her family privacy. She further claims that she preferred a more long-term lease beyond one year and she was led to believe that could be an option.

She claims that she notified the respondent by text that she had a HAP form and he called to her doorstep on the evening of 18 May 2017. She claims that he said that he had a problem with tenants on rent supplement in the past and he did not want to have to deal with that again. She said that she explained that the rent would be paid that there would be no issue and had to beg him to reconsider. She said he told her he would go away and think about it. She claims that the following morning at 9 am she received a call from the Letting Agency that rented her the property to say that the respondent had made up his mind he was terminating the leasing agreement and she would have to leave. She was told that she would be given time to find another place and move out and that her deposit would be returned in full.

She said that she was served notice on 4 July 2017 to leave the property which she did within a few weeks. She said that she felt humiliated, belittled and embarrassed. She was self-employed and hardworking and just needed the little bit of help to meet her bills that HAP provided her with. She said that she had to try and arrange for her and her family to find suitable accommodation within a short time period. This created a lot of emotional and financial pressures on her, particularly when she thought she had a property secured for at least one year, if not longer.

She provided evidence of her notices (Form ES. 1) dated on 11 July 2017 to the respondent setting out her concerns that she felt she was discriminated against on the ground of housing assistance. She also provided a copy of the respondent’s reply to her (Form ES. 2) dated 11 July 2017. The complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on 5 October 2017.

The respondent did not forward any written submissions in response to this complaint and did not attend the oral hearing.

The issue for determination in this complaint is whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant under the ‘housing assistance ground’ contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended), in relation to the termination of her tenancy agreement when she produced her HAP Application Form for signature. 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,”

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 was an applicant for housing assistance, therefore she is covered by the prohibited ground as per Section 3(3B) as mentioned above.

The complainant’s case is that she viewed the property and agreed to a one-year lease commencing on 2 May 2017. The respondent was living in the property next door on the same site and she was told that he would be creating a different driveway into his property to give her and her family privacy. She claims that she notified the respondent by text that she had a HAP form and he arrived on her doorstep on 18 May 2017. She claims that he said that he had a problem with tenants on rent supplement in the past and he did not want to have to deal with that. She said that she explained that the rent would be paid and that there would be no issues and had to beg him to reconsider. She said he told her he would go away and think about it. She claims that the following day at 9am she received a call from the Agency that rented her the property on the respondent’s behalf to say that he had come to a decision and she would have to leave.

I find the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the housing assistance ground.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing and therefore has failed to rebut the claim against him.

Having considered the uncontested evidence and on the balance of probability, I find that the respondent chose to terminate the tenancy agreement held with the complainant on the basis of the HAP application presented to him. Accordingly, I find that the respondent discriminated against the complainant because she was a HAP approved applicant.

Under Section 27(1) of that Act redress may be ordered where a finding is in favour of the complainant. Section 27(1) provides that:

"the types of redress for which a decision of the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 25 may provide are either or both of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances:

(a) an order for compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned; or

(b) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is so specified."

The maximum amount of compensation I can award under the above Section is €15,000. In considering the amount of compensation that I should award, I have considered the effect of the discriminatory treatment has had on the complainant including, the feeling of belittlement and embarrassment.

Also, I take note of the stress and inconvenience of having to arrange at short notice for her and her family to find suitable accommodation within a short period of time and the emotional and financial pressures she experienced. I order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €4,200 (four thousand, two hundred euro), which is equivalent approximately to 3 months’ rent for the property under the tenancy agreement, as compensation for the discriminatory treatment within 42 days of the date of this decision.

Equal Status Acts - Section 6 - provision of accommodation - Section 3(3B) - housing assistance ground – HAP – compensation.