Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ema  Karachodzhukova

Darren Murphy

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Ema  Karachodzhukova

Darren Murphy

Representatives

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00024902-001

09/01/2019

The complainant submits that she first moved into the named property in July 2017. She states that a few months later, her flatmate moved out leaving her unable to pay the rent. The complainant asserts that in November 2017, she asked the landlord if he would accept Housing Assistance Payment (HAP). The complainant contends that the landlord refused to accept her HAP application and requested her to leave the property. The complainant maintains that in the next year she made numerous requests of the landlord to accept her HAP application the last of which was 16 November 2018 but each time the landlord has refused. The complainant states that following sending an ES1 complaint form to the landlord, she was issued with a notice of termination. The complainant submits that she has been discriminated against in relation to the landlord’s refusal to accept her HAP application.

The respondent states that his family is the business 40 years and circa 60 percent of their tenants are supplementing their rent with social welfare/HAP payments. The respondent submits that the complainant is a tenant at the named address since July 2017 and despite an agreement drawn up  at the Residential Tenancies Board in July 2018 has not adhered to said agreement. The respondent states that the complainant has not paid rent arrears despite RTB judgements.

The respondent asserts that the complainant has refused on three occasions to sign the HAP form. The respondent maintains that he has been more than fair in this situation and that the complainant has constantly refused to co-operate whilst continuing to use every way available to avoid paying her lawful debts. The respondent presented in evidence a witness statement of Ms. K stating that she was present at the property on 23 October 2018 where upon the complainant was requested to present for signing of the documentation relating to HAP . It was submitted that the complainant presented a letter for the landlord to sign stating that it had received €8184.66 from her. But on presentation of this letter, the landlord states he refused to sign it as he never received the sum of money from the complainant. The respondent submits that there has been no breach of the Equal Status Acts and that it had offered to sign the HAP forms on many different occasions but was not willing to sign same on the condition that it signed a letter stating that it received €8184.66 from the complainant which it had not.  The respondent at hearing stated that prior to the hearing, the complainant sought a sum of €20,000 from him to finalise matters. He stated that this was said to him while a family member was present. The respondent submits that there is no basis to the complainant’s claims.     

The issue for determination in the instant complaint is whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant under the “housing assistance ground” contrary to section 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) by its refusal to accept payment of their rent under the HAP scheme and its notice of termination to the tenants.

The Equal Status Act 2000 was amended with effect from 1^st January 2016 as outlined above such that discrimination in relation to “providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities” is now prohibited under the new “housing assistance ground” which provides 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”).”

Section 3(3B) of the Act requires housing assistance to be “construed in accordance with Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014”.  It is clear from Section 39(2) of that Act that certain minimum conditions have to be met by a “qualified household” before HAP becomes payable as follows; ”(2) In order for housing assistance to be provided under this Part to a qualified household in respect of a swelling- (a) that household shall source the dwelling in respect of which it seeks housing assistance, (b) the dwelling concerned shall meet the conditions set down in section 41, (c) the landlord shall comply with the conditions set down in section 42.” A qualified applicant must therefore firstly source a dwelling which meets certain minimum conditions and the landlord for that dwelling has to comply with various conditions before an application can be considered and payment under the HAP scheme made.

Section 38A of the Act requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged can be inferred. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

Having carefully considered all the evidence adduced in the instant case, I note that the landlord stated that his family are in the business 40 years and that circa 60 percent of their tenants are supplementing their rent with social welfare/HAP payments.  While the complainant has argued that the respondent would not accept her HAP application, I find, based on the evidence heard that this was not the case. I am satisfied that the respondent was willing to accept HAP but was not willing to agree to signing a document to state that the complainant had paid him €8184.66 in rent arrears which the respondent states was untrue.

Having adduced the totality of the evidence in the instant claim, I prefer the evidence presented by the respondent and its witnesses as I found their testimony to be more cogent and convincing. In contrast, I found the complainant to be inconsistent in her evidence.  I am satisfied that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the housing assistance ground.   Accordingly, I find that the complaint is not well-founded and find in favour of the respondent in this case.

I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment by the respondent landlord on the housing assistance ground.