ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009841
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A transport passenger | A transport company |
Representatives | Self | Did not attend hearing |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00012906-001 | 01/08/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/12/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan
Procedure:
The hearing of this matter was arranged to take place on 15th December 2018 at 9.00am in the offices of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), Lansdowne House, Lansdowne Road, Dublin 4. The Complainant attended as arranged, the Respondent did not attend the hearing. Correspondence issued to the Respondent outlining the date, time and venue for the hearing was sent out some four weeks in advance of the hearing date.
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The Complainant has made a complaint under the Equal Status Act 2000 alleging that he has been treated unlawfully by being discriminated against in the provision of services. The grounds in question are AGE. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant alleges that on the morning of 21st April 2017 he needed to travel to Dublin City Centre and had deemed that Luas was the best and most suitable mode of transport. On entering the car park, he parked his car in bay number 46. The complainant memorised the bay number and proceeded to the pay / ticket machine. Any previous time he had done this he had paid a fee of €4.00. The complainant discovered that the payment method had changed and he now had to pay at the same machine which also issues travel tickets. The Complainant purchased his travel ticket and tried to pay his car park fee. Several options were displayed on the machine and the Complainant opted for the one showing “4” which he assumed referred to €4.00 for 24 hours. The Complainant selected this option and paid by visa card. On returning to his car at approximately 3.30pm (some 5.5 hours later) he discovered his car had been clamped. The Complainant telephoned the number on the notice and explained what had happened. The Complainant paid the €80 fee and the clamp was released in due course. The Complainant believes the new system of payment would probably be quite easy to navigate for those well versed in technology, however, due to his age he is not in that position. The Complainant makes the point that signage is very poor in relation to clamping of cars. The Complainant contacted the Respondent and failed to obtain any answers to questions he put to them. During communications with the Respondent the Complainant believes he made it very clear that his inability to correctly read the information displayed on the screen was due to his age. At no stage did the Respondent complete form ES2. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The Respondent is a public transport provider who provides a “Park and Ride “facility at various locations around the city. The car park management is managed by another service provider. When employees of the service provider locate a car improperly parked or one that has not paid the appropriate fee the car is clamped, the clamp is released when the driver of the car contacts the service provider and pays the appropriate charge, in this instance €80. On identifying a vehicle that is improperly parked or one that has an expired parking ticket the operatives of the car park management company clamp the car, they have no idea of who the car belongs to or who was driving the car at the time. The Law. Under Equal Status proceedings facts must be established by the Complainant from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, once achieved, it is for the Respondent to prove the contrary. In this instant case I believe the Complainant has failed to show how prohibited conduct has occurred and that no prima facia case has been established. |
Decision:
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.
No prima facia case has been established and therefore the complaint fails. |
Dated: 1 June 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim Dolan