Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A prospective tenant

A letting agency

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-00007375-001

04/10/2016

The complainant alleges discrimination on the housing assistance ground in relation to an advertised property; the respondents deny the claim.

The complainant outlined that on the 11th February 2016, he was looking for accommodation online. He was on a named website and saw the dwelling advertised for a rent of €500 per month. This advertisement stated that rent allowance was not accepted. He rang the respondent agency and spoke to a person. He could not say whether the person he spoke to was male or female and he was not an expert on voices. The complainant said that the person he spoke with asked him how was he going to pay the rent and where he was from. The complainant said that he mentioned rent allowance and the person said that they did not accept rent allowance. This person then put down the phone. The complainant said that this left him shocked.

The complainant said that he then approached a citizen information service, who informed him that it was now unlawful to refuse a person because they rely on rent supplement. The complainant said that he made the phone call to the respondent on the same day as he viewed the advertisement and he had been looking for accommodation in the afternoon. He commented that there was an error in the ES1 form which recorded the advertisement being viewed at 22.16 hours. In respect of not referring to the phone call in the ES1 form, the complainant said that he had been advised by the Workplace Relations Commission to fill in the form without too much detail and he would have the chance to make additional submissions later. The complainant said that he did not ask questions of the respondent in the ES1 form as he had been told that this was not necessary.

The complainant did not accept that this advertisement had been one from the year 2015 as he had printed it out on the 11th February 2016. He said that he felt victimised as he had been subjected to a screening process while looking for accommodation. He had been asked where he was from and this question was asked because of his accent. This represented unacceptable screening and segregation. He was asked whether he was a student and how he would pay the rent. They were questions used to detect who he was and to exclude him. This is why he felt victimised. The complainant said that he still felt humiliated, degraded, insulted and discriminated against. He stated that the respondent had money and sought to make its own rules. It sought to segregate people and was a clear violator. The complainant sought compensation for the humiliation. He stated that he had not made a follow-up call to the respondent. He said that it was insulting for the respondent to claim that he had not called. He is not a liar and it was defamatory to say he was a liar. He would not tolerate this humiliation.

At the outset of the adjudication, the respondent in attendance clarified that the respondent was a partnership. He acknowledged that the legislation changed in early 2016. While some landlords specified that they would not accept rent allowance, this was not an issue for the respondents. In respect of the advertisement seen by the complainant, the respondent said that this had not been amended and had slipped through the net. They became aware of this through a property sales website.

The respondent denied that the complainant had telephoned regarding the letting. The respondent outlined that it was a small, rural firm, and had the complainant phoned the respondent, he would have spoken to him. He stated that he worked in the agency as well as two secretaries. He commented that this was a rural area and they did not get students. It logged all enquiries, be they phone calls or emails. There was no record of a phone call from the complainant. He said that the respondents would not have discriminated against the complainant on grounds of nationality. He said that 50% of their tenants were not Irish and he was also not from Ireland. The advertisement in question was an old one that should have been amended.

In closing comments, the respondent said that they ran a small business and they were still feeling the recession. The business was still struggling.

The complaint relates to alleged discriminatory treatment on the 11th February 2016. On the 29th February 2016, the complainant sent a completed ES1 form to the respondent, to which it replied at the end of March 2016. I note the complaint form refers to the 30th March 2016 as the last date of discrimination, which is the date the complainant would have received the respondent’s ES2 form. Receipt of the ES2 form does not amount to a standalone act of discrimination. The complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission on the 4th October 2016, outside of the six-month limitation period provided in section 21(6) of the Equal Status Act. In his email of the 27th October 2016, the complainant refers to feeling unwell.

The ES1 form and the complaint form refer only to the complainant viewing the advertisement. There is no reference in either document to a telephone call on the 11th February 2016. This is relevant as section 21 requires that the prohibited conduct be done against the person. While section 12 prohibits discriminatory advertising, it is a matter for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Authority to enforce.

The fact of there being a discriminatory advertisement stating ‘no rent allowance accepted’ is not in dispute. The complainant stated he saw this on looking for accommodation and the respondent stated that this had been a 2015 advertisement left on a website and that the landlord had instructed that this be included in the advertisement. There is a conflict in evidence over whether the telephone call of the 11th February 2016 occurred, i.e. the act where the complainant says he was discriminated against in seeking accommodation and victimised by the comments made. The respondent denies that the telephone call was made.

Having considered the evidence, I find that the telephone call was not made and there was no discriminatory treatment or victimisation. I base this finding on the fact that the telephone call is not mentioned in the ES1 form or in the complaint form. The telephone call was the central part of the complaint, yet omitted entirely from either document. I note that obvious questions were not asked in the ES1 form, for example ‘who answered the phone call?’ and ‘who said those things to me?’ Instead, ‘N/A’ is written at Point 6 of the ES1 form. I note that the ES1 form states that the discriminatory treatment took place at 22.16 pm and the complainant stated that he telephoned the respondent on viewing the advertisement. It follows that this would involve a telephone call with the respondent in the very late evening, long after the end of normal business hours. For these reasons, I find as fact that the telephone call did not take place.

I conclude by finding that the complainant has not complied with the time limitation provision in section 21(6) of the Equal Status Act, in that the complaint was made more than six months after the date of the alleged act of discrimination. Having considered the evidence, the complainant has not shown reasonable cause in extending the time to refer the complaint.

CA-00007375-001

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

The complaint fails as it was not made within six months of the date of the alleged act of discrimination and reasonable cause has not been shown to allow for this time limitation period to be extended.

Section 21(6) of the Equal Status Act / time limitation period

Section 6 Disposal of premises and provision of accommodation

Section 12 prohibition of discriminatory advertising