Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Tenant

A Landlord

Representatives

Rudi Neuman, BL

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00018819-001

19/04/2018

The complainant in this case claims that he was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground under Section 3(3B) and in terms of Section 6(1)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000. When he responded to an advertisement on daft.ie, he was informed that the respondent did not accept tenants on the housing assistance payment scheme (HAP).

Responding to an advertisement on daft.ie, on March 8th 2018 at 12.44pm, the complainant sent an e mail to the respondent enquiring about the flat for rent and asked:

“Is the hap scheme accepted? As I am passed for hap and have all my paperwork in order, once signed by a landlord it will be paid into their bank account within 48 hours. 100% of the deposit and first month’s rent.”

He received a response saying, “Apologies we do not accept HAP at the minute.” He claims that by refusing to accept him as a tenant in receipt of HAP, he has been discriminated against, contrary to section 3(3B) of the Equal Status Act 2000.

The respondent in this case is the daughter of the person who owns the one-bedroom flat advertised for rent on daft.ie on March 8th 2018 and which the complainant applied to rent. The flat is an extension to the house where the respondent’s mother lives.   At the hearing, the respondent explained that her mother isn’t good at IT and, for this reason, she placed the ad on daft.ie on her behalf. She also used her own e mail address because her mother hasn’t got an e mail account. At the hearing, the respondent produced a letter from her mother in which her mother stated,

“Firstly, I would like to confirm that this is my property and my daughter (named), was dealing with emails and enquiries on my behalf.”

Her letter then explains how her daughter set about renting the property on her behalf:

“I put an advertisement up on daft.ie and put my daughter’s e mail as the contact as I have no knowledge of how to work e mail. My daughter replied to all e mails on my behalf and instruction. (Name of the complainant) sent an e mail enquiry on 8 March to say he was interested in the property and also queried if I accepted HAP. I asked my daughter to reply advising we were not accepting HAP at the minute because at the time I was not set up for HAP and I was making enquiries to see what I needed to do to set myself up for the HAP scheme.”

The complainant has brought a separate complaint against the respondent’s mother, and a hearing into this matter was held on September 10th 2018.

At the hearing into this complaint, it became evident that the landlord of the property that the complainant applied to rent is the respondent’s mother. I appreciate that the complainant was unsure of the identity of the respondent, as the name of the daughter of the landlord was given in the ad for the property. However, I have concluded that the person named as the respondent in this complaint is not the correct respondent.

As I have found that the respondent in this complaint has been incorrectly named, I decide that the complaint is dismissed because it is misconceived.

HAP scheme