ADJ-00012832

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00012832

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/10/2018

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Procedure:

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 referred a complaint under Section 21 of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 (also referred to as ‘the Acts’) to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter ‘WRC’)

The Complainant did send ES1 to the respondent’s Agent. This complaint was referred to me by the Director-General for hearing and determination pursuant to Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts.

This complaint is brought pursuant to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 [as amended by the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 with effect from 1st January 2016] which introduced the ‘housing assistance ground’ and prohibits discrimination in the provision of accommodation.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

Counsel for the Complainant firstly outlined the legislative background to this complaint. Specifically, this 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) may occur on the ‘housing assistance’ ground, that is because as between two persons, one is in receipt of Rent Supplement, Housing Assistance or other payment under the Social Welfare Acts and the other is not.  

The complainant submitted that he had a house rented from the respondent on the 20th June 2017. The complainant stated that he had been assessed by the city council and subsequently deemed eligible for a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP). For the payments to commence the respondent must complete a portion of the application form and provide certain documents. The complainant stated that he made several attempts through the Agents to have the documentation completed but without success. It was submitted that the complainant had been discriminated against by the respondent in not signing the appropriate forms which placed them, (complainant) in a very difficult financial position.

The respondent stated he had difficulties with the complainant.

The respondent submitted that that they (Landlord), were not properly notified with the ES1 form. It had been sent to the letting Agents who had no authority to receive or respond to it and as such the case could not proceed.

It was also submitted that the complainant’s complaint was made against the Letting Agents by delivery to them by the complainant of the ES1 Form and the Agents response by way of the ES2 form.

It was further submitted that it would be most unheard of any party to accept proceedings from an authorised Solicitor to accept service proceedings or to represent a client in such proceedings

Conclusions:

The complaint was received by the service on the 11th October 2017

I find that form ES1 was submitted at the time to the appropriate point of contact for the Complainant as contained in the tenancy agreement i e: letting Agent, who accepted and responded to it on the 9th October 2017.

I find, based on email evidence, that the appropriate documentation was exchange between the Agent and the respondent dated the 1st September 2017.

I find that the relationship between the Respondent and the” letting Agent” was terminated in November 2017.

I find that the complainant’s circumstances were assessed by the city council and subsequently deemed eligible for the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP). for the payments to commence the respondent must complete a portion of the application form and provide certain documents.

I find that the complainant provided the paperwork to the Agent who immediately wrote to the respondent requesting the completion of the application form and the provision of other documents as required. (letter dated 9th October 2017)

In the Agents correspondence of (09/10/17) to the respondent, they were made aware that the complainant had completed an Equal Status Notification on that grounds that he was being discriminated against by the respondent because he was in receipt of the House Assistance Payment and their failure to complete the appropriate documentation which they failed to do.

The sole issue for determination of this complaint is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant under the ‘Act’ contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended), the ongoing refusal to accept payment of his rent allowance. 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. I find that the claimant has made a prima facia case. I find that the respondent’s argument that they were not notified unacceptable based on the exchange of documentation between the Letting Agent and the respondent at the time

Decision:

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I decide in relation to the complaint 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 €3600 to the Complainant in compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned.

Dated:   January 14th 2019

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell

Key Words: