ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016813
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Derek Tunney | Ruth McMahon |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Derek Tunney | Ruth McMahon |
Representatives |
| P.A. Dorrian & Co, Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00021763-001 | 11/09/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 23/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, andfollowing 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:
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant responded to an advertisement placed by the respondent advertising accommodation to let. He viewed the property on February 27th (or 28th) 2018 and received an email around March 6th (or 7th) confirming that he had been accepted as a tenant. When the owner raised with him how he would be paying the rent he told her that it would be by means of the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) scheme. At that point she indicated that she would not be proceeding. It was clear that his involvement with HAP was the immediate cause of her withdrawal from the agreement. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent raises a jurisdictional issue. There is a requirement under the Equal Status Act that a respondent be notified within two months of the alleged breach of the intention to initiate proceedings by means of Form ES1. (Section 21 (2) (a). In this case the ES1 form was delivered in early September, some six months or so after the alleged discriminatory Act in March. The respondent says that it was not specifically the payment through HAP that was the issue. She realised that she had not completed a number of other formalities in order to comply with legal requirements. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Section 21 (2) (a) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 is very clear in stating that a complainant, before seeking redress, ‘shall’, within 2 months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred…notify the respondent in writing of the nature of the allegation and of the intention to seek redress under the Act. It is described in the explanatory notes as ‘the first step in someone making a legal claim’ of unlawful treatment. There is a provision to seek an extension of this ‘for reasonable cause’ but this was not done. Therefore it is a mandatory step without which a complaint cannot proceed, unless other provisions for extension are sought and granted. Indeed, the complainant told the hearing that he was not aware of this requirement. Accordingly, his complaint fails on the basis that it has not complied with the time limits set out in the Act, and is therefore not within jurisdiction. |
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.
For the reason set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-00021763-001 and it is dismissed. |
Dated: February 8th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Equal Status Act, HAP, Time limits. |