ADJ-00012072

 Anonymised Parties

Complainant

Respondent

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00015983-001

24/11/2017

The complainant is claiming that he was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground (Section 3(3B) in terms of Section 6(1)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended. He was given an appointment to view a house for rent and he was informed by email by the respondent that he did not accept tenants on housing assistance payments.

The complainant is claiming that he was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground (Section 3(3B) in terms of Section 6(1)(c) of the Equal Status Acts.

The complainant and his family were in rented accommodation and in receipt of rent allowance. He was given notice to quit as his landlord had sold the house. During the notice period, he saw the respondent’s house for rent on a property website. He said it was a 3-bedroom house and it appeared suitable for his family needs. He emailed the respondent on the 17th of September 2017, seeking an appointment to view the house. The respondent emailed him back with the times for viewing the property and also stating “no HAP please.” The complainant said that he telephoned the respondent to say he was in receipt of HAP and to enquire why he would not accept such payments. The respondent told him that he did not want to go near HAP or any other social welfare payments and requested him not to ring again.

The complainant did not view the house as he needed a landlord who would accept HAP. The complainant said that he was unable to rent accommodation before the notice expired on the 23rd of September 2017. This resulted in he and his wife and 3 children becoming homeless and living in emergency accommodation for 3 months.

The complainant sent a notification under the Equal Status Act to the respondent on the 21st September 2017 and referred a complaint of discrimination to the WRC on the 24th of November 2017. It was submitted that the complainant was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground in terms of Section 6 of the Act.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. In a written reply to the complainant’s notification of the complaint, the respondent stated that his daughter is living in the house and that she shares the house with tenants/friends. The property is not a regular rental property and he is not a professional landlord. His daughter needed someone to share the house for a short period as she is getting married and needed the whole house after her wedding.   He had no knowledge that writing “no HAP please” amounts to discrimination, otherwise he would have avoided using those words. He said that the complainant did not come to view the property or communicate any further. He had no opportunity to discuss his concerns. He said it was no his intention to discriminate and he is sorry if the complainant feels that he discriminated against him.  

The issue for determination in this complaint is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant under the ‘housing assistance ground’ contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended), in relation to completing its section of her HAP Application Form. Section 3(1) provides: “For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur— (a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which— (i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,”

Section 3(3B) provides:

“For the purposes of section 6(1)(c), the discriminatory grounds shall (in addition to the grounds specified in subsection (2)) include the ground that as between any two persons, that one is in receipt of rent supplement (within the meaning of section 6(8)), housing assistance (construed in accordance with Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014) or any payment under the Social Welfare Acts and the other is not (the “housing assistance ground”).”

Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended provides: “A person shall not discriminate in- (a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises, (b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or (c) subject to subsection (1A), providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities. Section 6(1A) provides: “Subsection (1)(c) is without prejudice to- (a) any enactment or rule of law regulating the provision of accommodation, or (b) the right of a person providing accommodation to make it a condition of the provision of that accommodation that rent supplement is paid directly to that person.”

Section 6(2) provides for a list of exclusions from this provision including: (a)” the disposal of any estate or interest in premises by will or gift, (c) any disposal of such an estate or interest, or any provision of accommodation or of any services or amenities relating to accommodation, which is not available to the public generally or a section of the public,

(d) the provision of accommodation by a person in a part (other than a separate and self-contained part) of the person’s home, or where the provision of the accommodation affects the person’s private or family life or that of any other person residing in the home, or

(e) the provision of accommodation to persons of one gender where embarrassment or infringement of privacy can reasonably be expected to result from the presence of a person of another gender.”

Section 38A of the Acts applies to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

The complainant is a qualified applicant for housing assistance payment (HAP), and is therefore covered by the prohibited ground per Section 3(3B) cited above. It is clear from the respondent’s email that he did not accept tenants on HAP payments. The respondent’s refusal to accept the HAP Scheme meant the complainant could not rent the property. I am satisfied that the complainant was treated less favourably than a prospective tenant not requiring the financial assistance of HAP. I find therefore that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the housing assistance ground.

I must now consider if the respondent has rebutted the prima facie case raised by the complainant. The respondent did not attend the hearing. In a written response outlined above the respondent appears to be claiming that the advertisement was for someone to share the house with his daughter on a short-term basis. I cannot accept this argument as the advertisement stated that it was a three-bedroom house available to move into on the 30th of September and the lease was for a minimum of one year. I note in his email to the respondent, seeking an appointment to view the property, the complainant told him that he needed accommodation for himself, his wife and 3 children. In his response email, I note the respondent did not tell the complainant that the house was not suitable for a family of 5 if it was as he claimed a shared letting with his daughter, instead he referred to the house for rent, made an appointment for viewing and said that he did not accept HAP tenants. For all of these reasons, I am satisfied that it was not a shared letting and therefore it is not covered by the exemptions provided for in Section 6(2).

The respondent’s statement to the complainant that he did not accept HAP tenants constitutes discriminatory treatment on the housing assistance ground contrary to Section 6 of the Act. I am satisfied therefore that the respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case raised by the complainant.

I have concluded my investigation of this complaint and for the above reasons, I find pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Acts, that the complainant has established a prima facie case of direct discrimination on the housing assistance ground which the respondent has failed to rebut.

Under section 27(1) of that Act redress may be ordered where a finding is in favour of the complainant. Section 27(1) provides that:

"the types of redress for which a decision of the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 25 may provide are either or both of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances:

(a) an order for compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned; or(b) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is so specified."

Under the above Section the maximum amount of compensation I can award is €15,000. In considering the amount of compensation that I should award, I have noted the effects of the discriminatory treatment has had on the complainant. I note the complainant was unable to rent accommodation before the expiry of the notice to quit the property he was renting and the family had to spend 3 months in emergency accommodation. In the circumstances, an award of €2,000 is appropriate. I order the respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of €2,000 (two thousand euro) compensation for the discriminatory treatment.

Key Words: Equal Status Acts, Section, Section 6 - provision of accommodation, Section 3(3B) - housing assistance ground, no attendance by respondent.