Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Patricia Keane

Mr Gerry Howley

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Residential Tenants

A Landlord

Representatives

Michael Houlihan & Partners

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00016566-001

18/12/2017

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

CA-00016567-001

18/12/2017

The Complainants brought their case under Section 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 [as amended by the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 with effect from 1 January 2016] which introduced the “Housing assistance ground” and prohibits discrimination in the provision of accommodation. The Complainants were in a rental agreement with the Respondent and they contend that they have been discriminated against by him as a result of his refusal to accept the Housing Assistance Payment Scheme (HAPS) towards the payment of the rent once they were deemed eligible to participate in the scheme.

The Complaints stated that they were in a rental agreement with the Respondent since 14 November 2016.

In May 2017, on becoming eligible for the HAPS, the Complainants stated that they sent all the necessary paperwork to the Respondent as well as a letter requesting his cooperation in relation to their HAPS entitlements. According to the Complainants, soon after this, they received a phone call from the Respondent. The Complainant stated that the Respondent was condescending and aggressive in his tone during this phone call. In addition, they claimed that he spoke in “riddles” and would not get to the point in relation to the HAPS request.

The Complainants stated, that when they pushed the point in relation to the HAPS application, the Respondent made it clear that he would not participate in the arrangement with them, unless he also stood to benefit financially. According to the Complainants evidence, the Respondent told them that he needed more money and that they would have to pay for any work needed to pass a HAPS inspection.

According to the Complainants’ evidence, in June 2017, they contacted the Respondent again by phone. The Complainants stated that they tried to explain to the Respondent how the HAPS arrangement could benefit him as a landlord. However, the Complaint stated that the Respondent again refused to engage unless there was a financial gain for him. In further evidence, the Complainant stated that the Respondent suggested that he would visit the rented property and would discuss with them how much money they have coming in and, then, they could come up with a “new figure” which they could pay him.

The Complainant stated that the Respondent informed them that they were lucky to have the house at a rent of €750.00 per month and he informed them that they would do well to remember that as he could get over €900.00 per month rent for the house in the morning, if he wanted to.

According to the Complainants, because of their difficult financial situation, they approached the Money Advice and Budgeting Service (MABS) in July 2017, to seek their assistance in gaining the cooperation of the Respondent in relation to the HAPS payments.   The Complainants stated that they thought the Respondent might be more reasonable and accommodating if the approach was made by MABS. According to the Complainant’s, MABS tried to engage with the Respondent on numerous occasions. However, he did not reply to their letters or calls until October 2017.

The Complainants stated that on 3 October 2017, they received a phone call from the Respondent at 6:00 pm.   In this call, the Respondent informed the Complainants that their lease was almost up. The Complainants stated that they requested, once again, that the Respondent would accept the HAPS from them.  

According to the Complainants’ evidence, the Respondent replied that they should go to the County Council or Social Welfare Office and ask for more money. The Respondent told them that he knew of people who are getting a lot more money than they were and they needed to do the same if they wanted to continue living in the property. The Complainants stated that the Respondent informed them he was going to raise the rent substantially at the end of the 12-month lease. The Complainants stated that they requested this in writing from the Respondent but they never received it.

The Complainants stated that, on the advice of Threshold, they wrote to the Respondent on 13 October 2017, enclosing all the HAPS paperwork and information again. The Complainants requested that the Respondent reply in writing or by email within 10 days. They further informed the Respondent in this correspondence that, if he did not reply, they would take this to be a continual failure to accept a HAPS payment from them. The Complainants stated that they received no reply to this correspondence.

According to the Complainants’ evidence, they received correspondence on 23 October 2017 from MABS, informing them that they had spoken with the Respondent and he confirmed that he would not agree to the HAPS application.

The Complainants stated that, on 7 November 2017, they sent an ES1 form to the Respondent along with an ES2 form. They received a letter from the Respondent, dated 10 November 2017, which did not address the points they have raised in the ES1 form. However, in this correspondence, the Respondent stated that he noted house inspections were part of the HAPS arrangements. The letter, which was presented in evidence at the Hearing, went on to state that the Respondent presumed the house in question would fail such an inspection.

In addition, the letter stated that, in the event that the Complainants wished to remain in the house and that he (the Respondent) could obtain a Tax Clearance Certificate, they (the Complainants) would have to look after whatever work would be required in the house following on from any HAPS inspection. The Complainants stated that they considered it unfair, unreasonable and unlawful to require them to look after the repairs that may be needed.

In summary, the Complainants stated that they had mentioned their potential future entitlement to HAPS to both the Respondent and his Estate Agent both before and early in their tenancy. According to the Complainants, they were told by both parties that this would not be a problem. They stated that the Respondent’s subsequent refusal to accept the HAPS payment had worsened their already difficult financial situation.

The Complainants described themselves as educated individuals with degree and postgraduate qualifications. However, they now find themselves temporarily out of work and with four young children to support, are finding it very difficult to manage. The Complainants stated that it was very unfortunate that the Respondent would not cooperate with them in relation to the HAPS. They describe themselves as good tenants who always pay the rent. They stated that it was unfortunate that the rules on the HAPS allowed the Respondent to have power over them and keep them from gaining the benefit of the scheme.

The Complainants stated that as a result of the Respondent’s failure to approve the HAPS payment for them, they were forced to engage with both MABS and the Community Welfare Officer, over the period of time in question, to assist them in their financial difficulties.

According to the Complainants, the Respondent has left them in a position where they could not avail of the HAPS payment for a period of over seven months. The Complainants contend that the Respondent discriminated against them as a result of his failure to allow them avail of the HAPS entitlement and, as a result, this had a damaging effect for their family, both financially and personally.

In response to the Complainant’s complaint, the Respondent stated that there was no mention of HAPS when the lease was originally agreed. The Respondent also stated that he never indicated to the Estate Agent that he would agree to a HAPS payment.

The Respondent went on to state that the situation was untenable from his perspective. He claimed he did not fully understand how HAPS worked and needed to get advice in this regard. However, he stated in evidence, that his situation was not a good match with the Complainants’ situation.

The Respondent further stated that HAPS would benefit landlords in a lower tax group than he is, but it was of no benefit to him. In addition, the Respondent stated that, given the length of time remaining on the lease, it would have been a complication for him to agree to HAPS.

The only matter to be determined in this case is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant’s under the “housing assistance ground” contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended), by refusing to complete his section of the HAPS Application Form and by his ongoing refusal to accept payment for his rent under HAPS.

Section 38A of the Act requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged can be inferred. It is only were such a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced, I am satisfied that the Complainants were approved by their Local Authority for the HAPS and were, therefore, eligible for the payment under the scheme.   I am further satisfied from the evidence, that the Respondent did not complete the necessary documentation in relation to the HAPS payments and continually refused to do so for the duration of the Complainants’ tenancy in his property.

Consequently, taking all of the above into consideration, I find that the Complainants have established a prima facie case of direct discrimination on housing assistance ground, contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 [as amended by the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 with effect from 1 January 2016].

I am further satisfied from the evidence presented, that the Respondent has failed to rebut the act of discrimination and, has in effect, admitted to his continual refusal to engage with the Complainants’ by refusing to complete the required HAPS documentation and/or by failing to accept the HAPS payments which the Complainants had been deemed entitled to.

Given the Respondent's refusal to participate in the HAPS scheme, I am satisfied that this resulted in additional and unnecessary financial hardship for the Complainants and their family. In this regard, I find the Respondent's refusal to engage with them in any meaningful or positive manner to have been particularly unreasonable. I am, therefore, of the view that the discrimination in this case is quite serious.

In this regard, I am further influenced by the Respondent's rather flippant approach to the Complainant's situation and in particular their approval for HAPS payments. I find this to be further exaggerated by his alleged attempts to seek personal financial gain from the Complainants’ qualification for HAPS. While I note the Respondent's denial of this allegation in his evidence to the Hearing, I am strongly of the view, based on the evidence set out in his letter of 10 November 2017 to the Complainants that, on the balance of probability, it is most likely that the situation as set out by the Complainants in this regard is the more accurate version of events.

Therefore, in considering an appropriate compensation for the discrimination that has taken place, I considered the actual financial loss suffered by the Complainants’ as well as an element to reflect the seriousness of the discrimination.

I note the actual financial loss to the Complainants, as a result of the Respondent’s refusal to accept HAPS on their behalf, amounts to circa €4,440.00, representing a monthly differential of €555.00 over a period of eight months. Taking into account an additional award to reflect the seriousness of the discrimination, I deem it appropriate to order the Respondent to pay €6,000.00 to the Complainant's in compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned.

Having carefully considered all of the evidence adduced and based on the considerations/findings as detailed above, I award the Complainants the sum of €6,000.00 in compensation for the discrimination suffered.

Equal Status

Housing Assistance Payment Scheme (HAPS)