Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Accommodation Seeker

Estate Agent

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00013146-001

16/08/2017

The Complainant has claimed that he was discriminated against because he is a HAP applicant and because of what happened to him when he was abroad. He is seeking an apology and compensation.

The Complainant informed the hearing that he was not pursuing a Civil Status complaint.

The Complainant stated that he made an application for accommodation. He met with the Agent and his application and references were accepted. They took €1,800 deposit on the accommodation. No issues were raised at that first meeting. The next day he was contacted by the Agent and asked to call to the office as they needed to check references. HAP was paying the rent. His application was declined by the Agent. He consulted citizens’ advice and they recommended that he take a case against the Agent. He has claimed that he was discriminated against because he had been detained in the Canaries and also because he had appeared on ‘Live Line’ radio programme. He also believes that he was rejected because he was a HAP applicant. He is seeking an apology from the Agent and an explanation why he was accepted at the first meeting and rejected on the next day. He is seeking an apology and compensation.

The Respondent stated that at the first meeting they accepted a deposit from the Complainant. They then had to check references and then get the landlord’s approval. They advised the Complainant that they needed further details and references on headed paper. They showed at the hearing that on one document only a mobile phone number was provided and no address was given or any type of sufficient information. The professional reference was for a job that the Complainant had in the 1980s, which was some 35 years previous, signed by a male but the sender was female. The second professional reference was from a professional acquaintance from the 1990s but didn’t state the business name or any other detail. The other reference was a personal reference which was deemed fine, strangely worded but fine. There was no previous landlord reference. The reference provided stated that the Complainant had stayed on and off. This was insufficient. The client landlord was an elderly female who was planning to rent a granny flat in her property and so it was very important to properly check the applicants’ history and rental history conduct and employment history where possible. in this case as in all cases. No move-in date was agreed as the property was not guaranteed until all documentation was cleared. At the second meeting the Complainant became aggressive and started to accuse the assistant of knowing something about him. His conduct was intimidating. The assistant assured him that his HAP was not an issue as they had plenty of HAP residents. When he left the office, the assistant was very upset. After that meeting the manager phoned the Complainant to explain that the information provided was insufficient. The Complainant became very aggressive and threatened to sue them. The manager then decided not to rent the property to him and advised him that the deposit would be returned. The Complainant was given the same opportunity as anyone else. He provided information that was unacceptable. In addition, his conduct and behaviour was aggressive and threatening. That was the sole reason why his application was declined. This complaint is rejected.

1)Civil Status

Discrimination on grounds of being a HAP applicant for accommodation