Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Beneficiary

A Solicitors Firm

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00021098-001

11/08/2018

I believe I was discriminated against by the respondent solicitors when I was told on 11 August 2016 that I must seek independent legal advice and where no reasonable accommodation was forthcoming throughout the probate process to date.  I further believe that I was discriminated against on the grounds of my disability and Human Rights under the Conventions and legislation of the above listed law and I am taking this case under the Equal Status Act Section 21 re being denied all my requests and necessary adjustments regarding a property (No 6 ) following the death of my late sister Ms EB and the subsequent probate process and being advised that I appoint my own solicitor and where I appointed my own solicitors, Incorporating Mr EB  (my late father),  - knowing the beneficiaries and our past history since their takeover of my father’s practice circa 1984.  I further believe that as a beneficiary with a disability and special needs I was not afforded my rights within the meaning of The Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 s2.

I respectfully seek redress from the respondent for the aforementioned breaches of the law in relation to their illegal treatment of me during the probate process of Ms EB’s Estate.

I also seek restitution from my 3 living siblings for reneging on their agreed and moral obligation made to me and my late sister following the death of both our parents in 1984 and 1987 and where in 1988 G.L. Solicitors noted ‘we had hoped and suggested to Mr. JEB that possibly the entire family could get together and agree by way of family settlement on a suitable fair and equitable distribution which might well indeed result in favouring one member of the family if there were members of the family whose needs were greater than the remainder.  We understand that this suggestion may not be feasible.  Accordingly, we are writing this letter with a view to getting a consensus of opinion and to explain the position as we have not had an opportunity of discussing it with you personally.’   ‘We take the view that the complainant may come within the ambit of this section (despite advancement) and that she must have advice from an independent Solicitor, as our Mr HL is your mother’s Executor and there is no way in which he can advise her.’  I was under enormous stress at that time, having had 6 major eye operations 1978-1989 including enucleation and breast cancer diagnosis in 1991.  Together with grieving the sudden death of my parents, the imminent loss of my home in Ireland and where both my parents’ Administration of Estates were being prepared, I naively - not thinking of my own long term interests, obliged my family and rescinded my s117 claim in relation to my disability where I was assured by family that I would always have a home in Ireland and where only Ms. EB honoured said assurance and moral obligation - said restitution to be €30k in full and final settlement thereof re my 3 living siblings.

Ms. EB  (17 years my elder) fulfilled her moral obligation to me in bucketloads not least by giving me a key to her home No 6 in 1984 - where my widowed mother also resided prior to her death in 1987 - and where Ms. EB ensured I was registered with the various authorities in Ireland - registered Blind with the NCBI; got my PPS No; registered with the GP Dr. NN and where Ms. EB advised said authorities that my address in Ireland was No 6 , all this, so that I always had a “home” and a ‘legal status’ in my birth country Ireland and so that I could access her home at No 6 whenever I needed to.

In addition, I seek restitution €30K from my 3 living siblings in full and final settlement in lieu of reasonable accommodation re No 6 to somewhat offset my rental costs in Ireland for the coming 3 years and to give me the much needed peaceful time to organise and futureproof my life, my accommodation needs, my health and guide dog requirements moving forward. 

 From the outset I looked for a mediated approach in resolving our family differences in relation to No 6 including an offer to buy my siblings share of No 6 and later on a professional mediation process and where all of the said requests remained mute.

                                                                                     —————

It was very difficult throughout the probate process to discern the responsibilities of the respondent vis a vis the LPR, in any event, the following outlines issues arising:

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION - I believe the respondent failed to provide me with “reasonable accommodation” as a blind person throughout the probate process and frustrated my attempts for an orderly extension and vacation of No 6 by not being mindful of my communications and those of Messrs SC solicitors in relation to my special needs in breach of ES Act 2000-2015 s3, s4; case law

PERSONAL STATUS - DISABILITY - I reached out to the respondent in person on 11 August 2016 and advised them of my status - a blind, single, female pensioner transitioning from my current guide dog of 8 years due her retirement to being matched in the months ahead with a new guide dog with projected extensive training over a 1 – 3 year period.

RESIDED IN MS. EB’S HOMES 1971-2017 - Not only did I reside with Ms. EB at No 6 from 1984 onwards I also stayed with her at her homes at various locations in Dublin.  I advised the respondent that I always resided in Ms. EB’s homes and specifically I resided at No 6 for substantial periods of time from 1984 onwards together with our mother prior to her death in 1987. 

SECURED KEYS FOR LPR 2011 - Following Ms. EB’s admission to the nursing home I secured a copy of the keys to No 6 for the LPR at his request.

MEETING WITH THE RESPONDENT 11 August 2016 - said meeting was held with permission & briefing from the LPR as advised by the respondent at the WRC meeting 23 January 2019 and where I was not aware of the LPR’s pre-meet briefings during said meeting.

LAWYER - Further to said meeting of 11 August 2016 the respondent advised me that she believed I was “a lawyer”.  I hastily advised the respondent that while I studied law following my early retirement due ill health I am a layperson and I have never had the opportunity to practice law and I am not a solicitor.  This and other personal information such as ‘she has an apartment in the UK - she doesn’t need this apartment’ and where the valuation of said UK apartment was also disclosed to me and was also reiterated to Messrs SC Solicitors where besides being irrelevant said disclosures were in breach of my privacy and ECHR Art 8.

PAY RENT - At said meeting I was advised verbally by the respondent that I should pay rent forthwith which I refuted and where I agreed to pay my share of utilities.  As I couldn’t see I asked if the respondent was taking any notes and was told no and that a verbal report would be given to the LPR and where I advised that if a report was being sent to the LPR I would like to be copied on same.

REQUESTED ACCESSIBLE FORMAT - At said meeting I advised and requested my requirement for communication to be delivered in accessible format e.g. electronic text format on all issues relating to the probate and any other matters pertaining to myself and No 6.  My emphasis on accessible format from 2016 onwards is essential to me so that I can read my own correspondence in private and not necessarily as in the past, share it with others or within the earshot of others, this specifically due to the advances of technology which has afforded myself and the business community this facility and in particular as governed by GDPR 2018; UNCRPD  art 2; ES Act s3, s4; ECHR Art 8; case law.

REQUESTED INTERNET ACCESS AT OWN EXPENSE - At said meeting I advised the respondent that I needed internet access due to my disability at my own expense as it enabled me to communicate through electronic means and thus communicate effectively with the various voluntary organisations I work with in Ireland and throughout Europe and with friends and family and where access to the internet and the Worldwide Web (WWW) being virtually an everyday household requirement and which gives me independence and access to information, research, media etc and where this was also refused in breach of UNCRPD art 2; ES Act s3, s4; case law; letter 16/8/16.

REQUESTED EXTENSION TO STAY AT NO 6 - At said meeting I advised the respondent of my need to extend my stay at No 6 due ongoing bereavements and stress, due my late sister’s death and me transitioning with guide dogs and where myself and my then guide dog knew the location intimately in terms of shops, bus stops etc and needed this time to plan and organise my future and where we had the support of family and friends.

RESPONDENT ADVISED I ENGAGE OWN SOLICITOR - At said meeting and in response to the issues requested above the Respondent advised they were representing the LPR and informed me that if I felt I had a special case over and above the beneficiaries then I needed to seek independent legal advice.  As a person with a legal disability and special needs I duly appointed Meesrs SC Solicitors to represent me.  I chose that firm as they were familiar with my siblings and our family history regarding the circumstances re my deceased parents and I believed they would be best placed to help reach a reasonable accommodation via the respondent. The Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 s2- includes a beneficiary to an estate under a will, intestacy or trust.

The above issues collectively demonstrate that the Respondent had no understanding of my needs as a disabled person and in the above circumstances acted in breach of the Disability Act 2005 ss 26, 27 and 28; ES act 2000-2015 ss3 and 4; ECHR art 8; UNCRPD art 2;  The Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 s2; Data Protection Act 2018 Ireland and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2018; case law.

My Solicitors who knew the family history appealed to the respondent in relation to my needs regarding a reasonable Let extension and advised them of the historical factors that existed between myself and Ms. EB at No 6.  This was to no avail and where the respondent largely ignored said appeals.

DISCLOSURES made re my PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES and my DISABILITY -   Messrs CS Solicitor informed me that the respondent advised them that I had my own place in London and therefore did not need this one at No 6. They also advised them of my financial status in relation to my home in London if I wanted to buy No 6.   I never discussed my personal finances or living conditions with the respondent or my solicitors and said information flow and disclosures and discussions thereof were in breach of my privacy.  My circumstances in the UK had no bearing on issues re Ms. EB’s Estate and should not have been the subject of discussion with the respondent in breach of ECHR art 8.

COMMUNICATIONS ‘FRAUGHT’  - Despite appointing SC Solrs - a firm known to the beneficiaries and the LPR,  a number of their communications went unanswered to the point that my solicitor advised ‘I might be more successful contacting siblings direct’ - this leaving me in limbo where said communications were also fraught and where the LPR told me ‘I would see nothing in relation to Ms. EB’  and where I was also informed that I should withdraw my WRC complaint forthwith so that my returns and tax liability could be processed and where further confusion and hurt arose where communication was received with errors re names/addresses advised incorrectly, all of this, at a time where I was dealing with the transitioning of my guide dogs involving extensive training in London and Dublin with my new guide dog Ava.  Due to the ongoing harassment, confusion and lack of effective communications I needed to attend counselling to help me to continue to deal with the probate process. The Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1994 s2; Data Protection Act 2018 Ireland and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2018;

6E           COMMUNICATIONS - MEDIATION - Due to the dysfunctional nature of the communications throughout the probate period I requested an independent family mediation process through SC Solrs to help resolve the conflicting issues and minimise further damage to family relationships  which were being compromised due to the constant harassing and bullying communications throughout the probate process by the LPR including phone calls, voice messages, messages 3rd hand and where SC Solrs requested that all communication to me should be via email or via SC solrs - all requests remained mute..  The respondent also advised that no family mediation could take place prior to the WRC Hearing or subject to the withdrawal of my claim. 

The complainant is not a client of the respondent. Her brother, as the named executor in her late sister’s will is the client.  As such the respondent did not provided any service to the complainant. Following the respondent’s advice to engage her own solicitors, the complainant did engage a firm of solicitors to act on her behalf. On that basis the claim is misconceived.

I have careful considered the submissions, evidence and documentation proffered by both parties during the hearing of this matter.

S4.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.

The complainant's issues are with her family in relation to the administration of her late sister’s estate. She is clearly very upset with her siblings for their failure to address her needs as a blind person together with their failure to acknowledge her relationship with her late sister and the time she spent in her sister's home when she travels to Ireland from the UK.

The respondent solicitors are instructed by the complainant’s brother, the executor, in relation to the administration of her late sister's estate. The respondent quite correctly advised the complainant that she needed to get independent legal advice, as to deal with her complaints would be a conflict of interest. The complainant did appoint solicitors to act on her behalf. Any issues she had about documents not being in a format that she could read, full firmly at the feet of her instructed solicitors. Whilst the respondent has a duty of care to all the beneficiaries, they do not have an obligation to translate all documents into a format that each of the beneficiaries can read. That is the responsibility of their own solicitors.

It is very clear that the complainant has a difficult relationship with her siblings. All of the issues outlined in her very lengthy submissions arise directly from that fractured relationship.

One essential element of a claim for discrimination under the Equal status act is the ‘provision of a service’. The complainant was not a client of the respondent. It follows from that, that the respondent did not provide a service to the complainant. On that basis, I can only conclude that the complaint against the named respondent is misconceived.  Furthermore, I find that the respondent solicitors, in relation to the probate of her late sister estate, acted appropriately and in compliance with the Law Society guidelines.

The complaint fails.