Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Angelica Radio nova

Celina Sheehan

Representatives

No Appearance for or on behalf of the complainant

Celina Sheehan

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00018141-001

21/03/2018

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

CA-00018141-002

21/03/2018

This case is conjoined with ADJ 13787 and has evolved from the set of facts. The Complainant engaged in extensive correspondence with the WRC prior to the hearing which culminated in a statement of her intention not to appear for the hearing. She stated a preference for a decision on foot of written submissions only.

The Respondent denies locus standi in the case and submitted that she managed a supermarket and served as an Agent for the Respondent in ADJ 13787 and collected rent for many properties. The Respondent rejected all the complaints lodged and submitted details of a sub plot in the case where the complainant was presented as a difficult tenant who resisted an eviction notice and ceased paying rent many months before her eviction.

The Respondent queried the WRC jurisdiction in the case given the clear absence of a Section 21 notification prior to submission of the complaint on March 21, 2018. She also submitted that it was the Landlord named in ADJ 13787 who provided the service and she had been wrongly identified as a Respondent in the case.

Both parties submitted extensive written correspondence. The Complainants submission was devoted to a chronology of deficits in her rental property and amended by a narrative of the Respondents refusal to sign her application for Housing Assistance Programme which contributed to her claim for Discrimination on disability and family grounds. There were separate claims for Victimisation and Harassment.

The Respondent sought to clarify the background to the refusal to sign Part B of the HAP application. The Respondent gave direct evidence at the hearing. There was no appearance by the Complainant.

In preparation for the hearing the WRC had re-arranged the start time of the hearing to facilitate the arrival of the Country bus on which the Complainant had indicated she would be travelling. The Complainant was notified of my obligations to hold a hearing under Section 25 of the Act and she did not submit any reasons for her nonattendance in the aftermath of the hearing. The relevance of a holding a hearing for me rests on my capacity to meet the parties, observe their demeanour, permit direct evidence and the power engine of cross examination. In addition, I also ask questions. All of this which emanates from fair procedures which in turn informs my eventual decision in the case

The Complainant submitted that she was of Eastern European origin and had been a tenant of the Respondent in ADJ 13787. On 21 March 2018, the WRC received a complaint on plain paper which referred to a statement of complaint on behalf of the complainant and her unnamed child. She submitted that she and her child had been harassed, victimised, discriminated against on grounds of Housing Assistance by the Respondent in this case.

The Complainant detailed that she had been denied access to HAP (Housing Assistance payment) by the respondent which caused her to have to borrow money. She clarified that she would be relying entirely on what was contained in her statements.

The Complainant took issue at the conjoined cases being heard on the same day. Subsequently she objected to having to present at a hearing in her case. The Complainant submitted many written statements to the WRC embossed with the WRC logo and titled Section 21 document. The WRC responded by re-affirming the need for a hearing in the case, given the contentious nature of the proceedings.

The Complainant devoted a large part of her written submissions to her interface with her landlord and other external bodies.

The Respondent denied all claims submitted against her. She submitted that she was wrongly depicted as the Provider of a Service and always worked as an intermediary for the named Respondent in ADJ 13787.

The Respondent submitted that the case should not proceed in the absence of the obligatory Section 21 notification prior to the submission of the complaint in March 2018.

The Respondent also confirmed that the Complainant was in fact in receipt of rent allowance and she had paid rent of €110 per week prior to her defaulting in payment. The Complainant had eventually been evicted some three weeks before the hearing. The Respondent submitted that the complaint to the WRC was in response to a negative finding against the complainant with costs in the higher courts. The case had been against the Landlord in ADJ 13787. The Respondent attached voluminous documentation on this matter.

The Respondent detailed that the complainant had been a contentious tenant but she had not discriminated against her or victimised or harassed her.

I have considered this case very carefully. I am obliged under Section 25 of the Act to hold a hearing. I did this to ascertain

1. Was the ES1 or its equivalent in being?

2 Direct Evidence and Cross Examination of the parties.

I am satisfied that the complainant was on notice of the correct date, time and place of the hearing as she was facilitated with a late start time to accommodate her travel arrangements.

I could not establish the presence of an ES1 form or its equivalent in the extensive documentation forwarded by the complainant. This has placed the continuance of the case in jeopardy.

I was unable to receive the benefit of direct evidence of direct evidence in the case as to how the Equal Status Acts had been contravened?

The claimant was involved in an eviction scenario with the Landlord in ADJ 13787 which travelled to the Superior courts with costs awarded against the complainant. I accept the submissions of the respondent in this case that the present proceedings overlapped with that process and the complainant was seeking to remain in the property. I accept that this was the primary event live at the commencement of the complaint in March 2018.

A Service Provider is defined within the terms of Section 5 of the Act.

Discrimination is outlined in Section 3 of the Act and Section 4 on reasonable accommodation.

(3B) For the purposes of section 6(1)(c), 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 (construed 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 Respondent contended that the Complainant was in receipt of rent allowance and she did not submit details of a comparator against whom she had been treated less favourably.

I cannot establish that the Respondent named in this case is the correctly identified as the service provider has already been addressed in the name of the Landlord in ADJ 13787.

I find that I must dismiss the complainants on the grounds of being misconceived.

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.

A complaint was received by the Director General of the Workplace Relations commission from the complainant, Angelica Radionova on 21 March 2018 alleging that Celina Sheehan, as a Service Provider contravened the provisions of Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 in relation to her. The said complaint was referred to me for investigation.

A hearing for that purpose was held on 14 November 2014, there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing.   I am satisfied that the said complainant was informed in writing of the date, time and place at which the hearing to investigate the complaint would be held. 

I am not able to accede to the complainant’s request that the case should be decided on by written submissions alone.

The Complainant has not complied with the statutory notification procedures set down in Section 21 of the Act.

The Complainant has wrongly identified the Respondent as a Service Provider. I have addressed the correct Respondent in ADJ 13787. She has not named a comparator.

The Complainant has made a complaint in her own name without naming the child she referred to. I have addressed this decision in that vein.

In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary having been adduced before me, I must conclude that the within complaints are not well-founded and I have decided to dismiss the complaints in accordance with Section 22 of the Act as misconceived.

Discrimination, ES1 notification