ADJ-00011130

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00011130

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Note this decision should be read with ADJ8200 ADJ 10558

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/12/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complaint is brought under Section 6(1)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000 which prohibits discrimination in the provision of accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation under all the protected grounds. By Section 3(3B) of the 2000 Act [as inserted by the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 with effect from 1st January 2016], discrimination in the provision of accommodation under Section 6(1) (c providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities.  

Evidence of the Complainant

The complainant submitted she and her partner had a house rented from the respondent and on the 5th October 2016, they received notice that their rent was being increased from the 3rd January 2016. They received a further letter dated the 7th October which stated that due to a typing error the date the new rent came into effect was the 3rd January 2017. The complainant under part 6 of the Residential Tenancy Act 2004 submitted the dispute for adjudication. It was submitted by the complainant that the respondent harassed them with letters on a continuous basis seeking the increased rent. The complainant continued to pay their regular amount of€950 per month however the respondent insisted that the new amount of €1200 per month be paid immediately. The stress that the respondent put the entire family under was unreal, up to the point where they were threatened with eviction if the amount was not paid. The complainant finally had to pay the increased amount to keep a roof over their head.

An adjudication hearing on the rent took place on the 4th May 2017 where the respondent did not attend but sent an email in the morning of the hearing. The adjudicator found that the notice from the respondent was invalid and awarded the complainant and his partner the sum of €1000.

The complainant received additional notice from the respondent stating the property was being sold. The complainant stated that the level of stress and harassment from the respondent was totally unreasonable. It had made a major impact on both her and her partner’s life and that of their unborn son. It was stated that the constant pressure from the respondent has left its mark on the entire family.

On the 30th March 2017, the complainant submitted that her partner telephoned the respondent and enquired about additional accommodation and if the respondent had any properties for rent on their books for their family. It was stated by the complainant that the respondent’s representative(female) answer was" yes, we have but we will not give ye one, after all, ye took a case against us”. The claimant stated they were discriminated against on family grounds.

Findings and Conclusions:

The complaint was received by the service on the 8th August 2017

The respondent sought an adjournment on 11th December which was refused and on the 12th December the service received a phone call stated the respondent was sick. The case was being heard at that stage and it continued.

It should also be noted that the respondent did not attend the adjudicating hearing held on the 5th May 2017 at 11.30.

I find that form ES1 was not submitted to the respondent, however, having examined all documentation submitted by the complainant I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the complaint.

I find that in accordance with

Section 21 (3)

1. that exceptional circumstances prevented the complainant from notifying the respondent in accordance with subsection (2), and
2.  

Section 21 (7)

(a) the Director may direct that, in relation to that case, subsection (6) 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

I find that the complaint is properly before the WRC and has been brought within the requisite time-limits provided by Section 21 of the Acts, including those for giving notice of a complaint and referring the complaint.

The sole issue for determination of this complaint is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant under the ‘’ contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended)) In relation to the applicable burden of proof, 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.

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.” and has no application to the instant case.

I must consider whether the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination. Section 3B of the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2015, as inserted by Section 13(b) of the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 provides “for the purposes of section 6(1)(c), the discriminatory grounds shall (in addition to the grounds specified in subsection (20 include the ground that as between any two persons, (within the meaning of section 6(8.)

Having considered the Complainant’s evidence in this case I find it to be wholly credible.

I find the statement by the complainant where the respondent refused to consider the family for another accommodation because they had made a complaint as discrimination on family grounds which is prohibited under the Equal Status 200 Act .

Having satisfied myself that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination, and the fact the respondent was not present at the hearing to make a rebuttal, I am making the following;

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts requires that I make a decision in relation to this complaint, and if finding in favour of the Complainant to do so in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Section 27 of that Act. I have concluded my investigation of this complaint and based upon the aforesaid, I find pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Acts, that the Complainant has made a prima facie case of direct discrimination on the rental accommodation ground contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended), which has not been rebutted by the Respondent.

Having regard to all the circumstances and pursuant to Section 27(1)(a) of the Acts, I deem it appropriate to order the Respondent to pay € 2500 to the Complainant in compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned. 

Dated:         01 May 2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O Connell

Key Words: Key Words