Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Roberto Alamazani

Angela Keegan

Representatives

Hayes Solicitors Hayes Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00006744-001

1/Sep/2016

The complainant submits that the respondent discriminated against him in respect of a rental property advertised on its website on 22nd of February, 2016 as it was clearly stated in the Property Overview/Property Description -that "PLEASE NOTE – H.A.P. OR RENT ALLOWANCE NOT ACCEPTED".

In accordance with his powers under section 75 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998-2015 and under the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015, the Director delegated the case to me Orla Jones, Adjudicator/Equality Officer, for investigation, hearing and decision and for the exercise of other relevant functions of the Director under III of the Equal Status Acts, 2000-2015. Written submissions were received from both parties.   As required by Section 25(1) and as part of my investigation, I proceeded to a Hearing on the 8th of February, 2018. The complainant was present at the hearing but the respondent did not attend.

This decision is issued by me following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission on 1 October 2015, as an Adjudication Officer who was an Equality Officer prior to 1 October 2015, in accordance with section 84 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015.

The Complainant submits that

The respondent discriminated against him in respect of a rental property advertised on its website on 22nd of February, 2016,

It was clearly stated in the Property Overview/Property Description that "PLEASE NOTE – H.A.P. OR RENT ALLOWANCE NOT ACCEPTED".

It is against the Law to refuse to rent an accommodation to people in receipt of Rent Supplement or in receipt of any payment under the Social Welfare Acts, as stated under the Equal Status Act,

The house to rent advertised in the website, was discriminating against him and victimising him, because he is in receipt of Rent Supplement and Social Welfare payment,

The complainant states that he contacted the estate agent named in the advertisement and made enquiries about renting the property but was told that rent allowance is not accepted.

The Respondent submits that

the complaint is out of time given that the date of the incident giving rise to the complaint was 22 February 2016, and the complaint was submitted more than six months later on 1st of September 2016,

The Complainant does not have standing to pursue the subject matter of the on the basis that the complaint is essentially one of prohibited advertising contrary to Section 12 of the Equal Status 2000, which is outside of the scope of Prohibited Conduct as prescribed under Section 21 of that Act,

The distinction between Prohibited Conduct and Prohibited Advertising is seen also in Section 23, which permits the lrish Human Rights and Equality Commission ['IHREC") to refer a contravention of the prohibition on discriminatory advertising to the WRC,

Where the complaint is, however, that a person has published an advertisement in contravention of Subsection 12, as here, the only person with standing to pursue a complaint under Section 21 is, pursuant to Section 23, the Equality Authority IHREC).

the WRC has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

Preliminary Issue in respect of Time Limits

Section 21 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 to 2015 makes provision for the time limits to which a complainant is obliged to adhere before a complaint can be deemed admissible, including time limits for the referral of complaints, namely:   

Section 21(6)- “6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence”.

This complaint was received by the WRC on the 1st of September, 2016 and the date of the alleged discrimination is cited as 22nd of February 2016 therefore the 6 months expired on 21st of August 2016.  Thus this complaint was submitted outside of the six months time limit.   The Equal Status Acts provides that an extension of the time limits to twelve months may be granted where ‘reasonable cause’ can be shown which would both explain and excuse the delay in submitting the complaint.

In relation to time limits the Equal Status Act states;

(6) (a) Subject to subsections (3)(a)(ii) and (7), a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.

 (b) On application by a complainant the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction; and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

In summary, the general principles which apply are that something must be advanced which will both explain and excuse the delay. 

The Labour Court has set out the test in Cementation Skanska v Carroll, DWT 38/2003 as follows; 

It is the Court's view that in considering if reasonable cause exists, it is for the claimant to show that there are reasons which both explain the delay and afford an excuse for the delay. The explanation must be reasonable, that is to say it must make sense, be agreeable to reason and not be irrational or absurd. In the context in which the expression reasonable cause appears in the statute it suggests an objective standard, but it must be applied to the facts and circumstances known to the claimant at the material time. The claimant’s failure to present the claim within the six-month time limit must have been due to the reasonable cause relied upon. Hence there must be a causal link between the circumstances cited and the delay and the claimant should satisfy the Court, as a matter of probability, that had those circumstances not been present he would have initiated the claim in time.

The complainant was invited to make a submission on the time limits issue by letter from the WRC issued on 25th of October 2016. The complainant in a response to this sent by email on 22nd of December 2016 stated that he was not feeling well and had been ill for some time and was on medications and undergoing counselling.   The complainant in support of this assertion later submitted 3 medical certificates stating that he had attended at a doctors surgery twice in June 2016 and once in August 2016, these certs do not specify what the visits relate to.   The complainant submitted a doctor’s letter dated 18 July 2016 which states that the complainant attended the doctor and that he has an ongoing issue with housing which is causing him poor sleep and low mood.   A letter was also submitted indicating that the complainant had made a request for Counselling and was to be put on a waiting list for an initial assessment.

In considering the complainant’s assertion that he was unable to file his complaint within the six months’ time limits due to the fact that he was unwell I note that this complainant has submitted numerous complaints to the WRC in relation to allegations on both the Housing assistance ground and on the ground of race in respect of advertisements for rental properties.  The decisions in respect of these complaints are published by the WRC and the details of same indicate that the complainant submitted at least one of these complaints during the time period under consideration here i.e. from 22nd of February 2016 to 21st of August 2016. Thus, the complainant is claiming that he was unable for health reasons to submit this complaint within the prescribed time limits but he has managed to submit at least one other complaint during this time period.

In order to grant an extension of the time period from 6 months to 12 months I must be satisfied that the reason advanced by the complainant for the delay both explains and excuses the delay.  Having regard to the totality of the evidence adduced in relation to this matter I am satisfied that the complainant has failed to provide me with an explanation which both explains and excuses the delay in submitting the complaint therefore his application for an extension of time fails.

The complaint was submitted outside of the time limits set out in S. 21 of the Equal Status Acts and accordingly, I find that the Commission has no jurisdiction to investigate the within complaint.

In accordance with section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision. I find that

(i)            I find that the present complaint is out of time in accordance with section 21 of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015.