Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Graham Reynolds

Danny Ramos

Representatives

Donal Reilly and Collins Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00030332-001

16/08/2019

The complainant submits that the respondent refused to participate in the Housing Assistance Payment scheme in May 2019.

The complainant submits that the respondent refused to participate in the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) scheme in July 2017 and May 2018. At the hearing he recognised that any claim in relation to July 2017 was out of time and he did not pursue this part of the claim. He says that following his request to the respondent in May 2019 he was served with an eviction notice.

The respondent did not reply to the notification sent by the complainant and made no response to the WRC communication in relation to this hearing. Neither did he attend the hearing, as he is living in Australia, but his representative did attend on his behalf.

The representative stated that he did not refuse to participate in the HAP scheme, as it was not raised by the complainant in May 2019.

The issue to be decided 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), by refusing to participate in the HAP scheme when requested by the complainant.

Section 21 of the Equal Status Act states that: “Before seeking redress under this section the complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of —

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent ’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,

and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to theDirector of the Workplace Relations Commission, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)the date of notification is the date on which the notification is sent, unless it is shown that the notification was not received by the respondent.

(3) (a) On application by a complainant the Director of the Workplace Relations Commissionmay —

(i) for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant subsection (2) shall have effect as if for the reference to 2 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 4 months as is specified in the direction, or

(ii) exceptionally, where satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstance of the case to do so direct that subsection (2) shall not apply in relation to the complainant to the extent specified in the direction,

and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

 (b) In deciding whether to give a direction under paragraph (a)(ii)the Director of the Workplace Relations Commissionshall have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including —

(i) the extent to which the respondent is, or is likely to be, aware of the circumstances in which the prohibited conduct occurred, and

(ii) the extent of any risk of prejudice to the respondent ’s ability to deal adequately with the complaint.

(4) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission shall not investigate a case unless theDirector of the Workplace Relations Commissionis satisfied either that the respondent has replied to the notification or that at least one month has elapsed after it was sent to the respondent.

The complainant provided proof of posting of the notification to the respondent dated 15 August 2019 and, as part of this investigation, the respondent acknowledged receiving the notification. The respondent did not reply. The complaint to the WRC was registered the following day. However, in accordance with subsection (4) I am satisfied that at least one month elapsed from the date the notification was sent to the respondent until I began my investigation. I therefore conclude that the notification requirements of section 21 are satisfied.

The Equal Status Act seeks to prohibit discrimination in the provision of services The Act was extended to include discrimination on the housing assistance ground. This includes the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) as provided by Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2014, which sets out the requirements for a landlord.

Section 3B of the Equal Status Acts states: …… 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 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 ” ).

The evidence from the complainant is that he spoke to the respondent on the phone on 30 April 2019 and, as he put it, “mentioned HAP again” and the respondent said he needed time to think about it. They met at the property on 9 May 2019 and the respondent said he was thinking of selling the property as the rent was so low. He returned about two hours after the meeting and served a Notice of Termination.

A copy of an email from the respondent to the complainant dated 11 May 2019 states the termination notice was issued because he wanted to sell the house for personal reasons. There is no mention of HAP in the email.

The validity of the notice of termination was referred to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) by the complainant. Both parties provided me with a copy of the RTB Report of their investigation. I note that in their submission to the RTB the complainant mentions the refusal of the landlord to participate in the HAP scheme in 2017 but makes no mention of any discussion of the HAP scheme in 2019. The respondent was not present at that hearing.

I have considered all the evidence put before me, both oral and written. My conclusion is that in May 2019 the respondent did not refuse to participate in the HAP scheme. He intended to sell the house and there was no connection between this decision and the Housing Ground.

For the reasons given above I find that the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant on the housing ground and the complaint is not well founded.

Housing Assistance HAP