ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012156
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-00016078-001 | 30/11/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/05/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000,following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The case concerns a Tenant and a Landlord in relation to the alleged refusal of the Landlord to accept HAP as a means of paying the rent on a property. |
1: Summary of Applicant’s Case:
The Applicant was a Tenant of the Respondent. The Respondent refused to accept the HAP system as a means of receiving Rent from the Applicant. The Respondent initially indicated to the Applicant that she could remain in the Premises as long as she liked but not on a HAP basis. The Applicant sent a Form ES1 to the Respondent on the 22nd of September 2017. No reply was received to the ES1. A notice of Termination of the Tenancy was issued on the 28th September 2017. However, by local arrangement the Applicant could remain in the Property until the 28th July 2018. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Did not attend the Hearing and no correspondence received. A period of some four weeks last allowed post the Hearing Date to facilitate an explanation for Non- Attendance or late communications from the Respondent. None was received. On examination I was satisfied that the Respondent had been properly notified of the Hearing. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
The Law and Legal Precedents. Adjudication Adj-00004100 of the 9th August 2017 sets out in significant detail the law and the requirements under the Equal Status Act (2000) in cases of this nature. I have referred in detail to this case in considering my findings in the case in hand. Although the Respondent Landlord was not present at the Hearing I accepted based on the evidence presented that the Applicant satisfied the HAP provisions and was a Tenant of the Respondent. I accepted the evidence of the Applicant as credible. In copied Text messages produced in evidence the Respondent clearly indicated that she did not wish to participate in the HAP scheme regardless of the arguments put forward, to her, by the Applicant. The issuing of a Notice of Termination of the Tenancy within days of receiving the ES1 form was, in my view, prima facie evidence of Harassment of the Applicant. Taken with the refusal to accept the HAP proposals from the Applicant I had to find that there was a sustainable prima facie case of Discrimination and Harassment contrary to the Terms of the Equal Status Act 2000. In considering any questions of Rebuttal arguments in favour of the Respondent I could find none. |
4: 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 Applicant 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 Applicant has made out a prima facie case of direct discrimination on the housing assistance ground contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended), which has not been rebutted by the Respondent.
Given the real and tangible effects of the Respondent’s ongoing refusal to participate in the HAP Scheme including the financial hardship suffered by the Applicant and her family along with the absence of any exonerating evidence, I consider this the be a serious case of discrimination contrary to the Equal Status Act,2000.
The Applicant has suffered an estimated financial loss of circa € 3,500 (on figures provided at the Hearing) since the Respondent’s initial refusal to accept HAP on her behalf in August 2017. 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 €3,500 to the Applicant in compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned in relation to the HAP scheme.
Also of concern is the continuing breach of the legislation so pursuant to Section 27(1)(b) of the Acts, I direct the Respondent to take such steps as are required to enable the Applicant to participate in the HAP Scheme (including completion of the Application Form and compliance with any necessary conditions) and accepts HAP payments from the relevant Local Authority forthwith.
In relation to the immediate issuing of a Termination notice in close proximity to the receipt of the ES1 form this was a prima facie instance of quite serious harassment.
In redress of this harassment I award a compensation lump sum of €2,000.
The Total Redress awarded is €3,500 for the HAP breaches and €2,000 for the Harassment – a total of € 5,500.
Dated: 19/09/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee