ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00016141
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Erica Gillen Keegan | Niall Noone |
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Erica Gillen Keegan | Niall Noone |
Representatives | John Hennessy Hennessy & Perrozzi Solicitors | Eoghan O'Reilly FH O'Reilly & Co Solicitors |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00020843-001 | 28/07/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 07/11/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: David Mullis
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000following 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 and her partner had rented a room in the Respondent’s house in November 2017. The Respondent turned up at the house in May of 2018 and following a number of conversations between them the Respondent asked the Complainant and all others living in his house to move out. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant says the she and her partner took a room in the Respondent’s house and paid €160 per week, rent. They did not have a written lease agreement and they had not rented it directly from the Respondent. She says that when, what she then realised to be the owner, returned to live in the house that she and her partner had asked if the respondent would accept their rent allowance payment from the date of their discussion – the 9th May 2018. They say that he said that he would accept cash only. They say that the Respondent said he would consider the proposal and revert to them. They said he did not accept any payment when offered cash on the 6th June 2018. They say that on the 7th June 2018 they presented the Respondent with the ES1 form, but that he advised them that the rooms were never up for rent. They say that on the 3rd July 2018 they arrived at the house to find their belongings were outside the house and the locks had been changed. They say that they were discriminated against through the non-acceptance by the Respondent of their HAP payment and are seeking redress under Section 21 of the Equal Status Act, 2000. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent says that he was leaving Ireland for work purposes in November 2017. He says that he was asked by someone he knew to rent a room in his house to another man and his wife, whom he says he also knew and trusted, while he was absent from the house. When he returned from working abroad, in April 2018, he went to his house, but found that he could not gain access as the locks had been changed. He says he sought to contact the individual to whom he had leased a room in his house but he was not to be found. He says that he discovered over a period of time that there were now up to eight people living in the house who were not known to him and with whom he had no agreement with entitling them to be in his house. In these discussions with the residents he discovered that they had been given rooms in his house by the individual for whom he had “done a favour” (Mr. B.) There were no written lease agreements but rent had been paid to Mr. B, but not then paid to the Respondent. The Respondent says that he did not want the money concerned and had not given permission to Mr. B to rent rooms to anyone. He said that he explained this to all of the people who had rented the rooms and asked them all to vacate the rooms as he wanted his house back. He says that the house is his principal dwelling. He says also that he gave all of the people sufficient notice to enable them to find alternative accommodation. In summary he says that: (a) He has no legal relationship with the Complainant, (b) That the Complainant was unlawfully on his property, (c) That he was ignorant of the arrangement that existed until his return in April 2018, and (d) That the Complainant may have been ignorant of the true arrangement he had with the only renter that he was aware of. He also claims that he is exempt from Section 6(1) of the Act by the terms of Section 6(2) of the same Act, which provides as follows: Section (2): “Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬– (c)any disposal of such an estate or interest, or any provision of accommodation or of any services or amenities relating to accommodation, which is not available to the public generally or a section of the public, (d) the provision of accommodation by a person in a part (other than in a separate and self-contained part) of the person’s home, or where the provision of the accommodation affects the person’s private or family life or that of any other person residing in the home. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I find that as there was no lease agreement between the Complainant and Respondent and that the person (Mr. B), who was allowed to stay in the Respondent’s house while he was absent from the house had set up arrangements with the Complainant, and others, that were plainly not legal. I find that the Respondent has relief under Section 6(2) of the Equality Act, it being his primary residence when living in Ireland and one that he clearly expected to return to when not working abroad. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
I find, based on the Findings, above, that the Complaint fails. |