Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Tennant

Property Letter

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00012730-001

23/07/2017

The Complainant sought tenancy but believes that when the Respondent discovered that he was a HAP approved he was declined. He was discriminated against because he was a AHAP applicant. He has sought compensation.

The Complainant stated that he was approved for HAP on 27th April 2017. He agreed a viewing on 13th June with the Respondent. He met with a representative of the Respondent and liked the apartment. He advised the Respondent that he was approved for HAP which would cover the full amount of the rental fee. The Respondent did not advise him that others were viewing the apartment. The Respondent asked for a deposit and the Complainant advised him that he was HAP approved. Once the Respondent heard this he stated that there was somebody else viewing the apartment. He returned home and e-mailed the Respondent stressing his interest. The Respondent replied that the apartment was gone as the other applicant had cash. His wife checked the internet the next day and the apartment was still listed. She requested a viewing, not identifying herself as the Complainant’s wife. The Respondent advised that the apartment was available and he arranged a viewing the next day. The Complainant and his wife attended for the viewing. Once the Respondent saw the Complainant in the car he left the area. His wife texted him while she was waiting. The Respondent texted that he had another appointment. He never contacted them after that. He was discriminated against because he was a HAP approved applicant.

The Respondent stated that the current market is very busy. He tries to have as many viewings as possible. The Respondent company has a large number of HAP residents. HAP residents are not as easy to deal with as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant did not present a letter of approval for HAP. He asked the Complainant if his wife was available as they usually make the decision, he was told she was sick. HAP is not a guaranteed rent; the resident has to pay a part of the rent. He was not given all the information that has now been presented at this hearing. He understood from the Complainant that he had just arrived in Ireland, he was not a renter as they now know. The Complainant provided evidence of an income of €10,000 which is high so the Respondent had to check this out. Landlord references were not provided. An accountant number was given but he got no response. Due diligence has to be done in all cases. He told the Complainant that another applicant was due to view the apartment. That viewer paid in cash and got the apartment. The apartment that his wife saw on the internet was a different apartment. On 14th June, he arrived 30 minutes before the viewing. When he saw the Complainant, his reaction was had he double booked. So, he drove out and back to see who it was and he checked if he had a double booking. He was expecting a lady with a child. The Complainant’s wife phoned him but it was difficult to understand her. They then left. He didn’t offer them the other apartment as he had to do due diligence on them.

There was no discrimination. He has a large number of HAP residents. This claim is rejected.

Findings and Conclusions

I note the conflict of evidence in this case.

I note that the Complainant arranged and viewed the apartment.

I note that the Complainant believed that he had a deal, but when he informed the Respondent about being HAP approved he was then told that there were others viewing the apartment.

I note the Respondent’s position that he could not have confirmed the deal as he had to carryout due diligence. Yet I note he stated that he agreed to another applicant immediately because they had cash and all the relevant paperwork. So, in that case he did not double check the paperwork before confirming the tenancy.

I note that the Respondent did not refer to another apartment when he replied to the Complainant. He stated that this was because he had not done the due diligence.

I note the conflict of evidence over what happened at the viewing on 14th June. The Respondent stated that he was confused when he saw the Complainant and drove out and back of the estate to check matters out. The Complainant stated that the Respondent drove out and did not return as they waited 10 minutes.

On the balance of probability I find that the Respondent drove away and did not return.

On the balance of probability, I find that the Respondent was influenced by the HAP application and declined the Complainant’s application.

On the balance of probability I find that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant because he was a HAP approved applicant.

Discrimination for being a HAP recipient