ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00018084
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A former Tenant | A Landlord |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00023047-001 | 05/11/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 15/04/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Time Limits issues
The claim CA-00023047 was received by the WRC on the 5th of November 2018. The “Most recent date of Discrimination” is stated on the claim form to be 01/12/2017.
Section 21(6)(a) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 states and is quoted below
(6) ( a ) Subject to subsections (3)(a)(ii) and (7) , a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.
Section 21(6) (b) allows for an extension of this time limit to a 12-month period for “Reasonable Cause”.
In her evidence the Complainant referred to getting advice from FLAC and was also taking proceedings at the Residential Tenancies Board at he same time.
In this context I had to take the view that she was in receipt of advice and the late filing of the Equal Status claim, while regrettable from her point of view, did not come under the “Reasonable Cause” remit.
Having considered the matter with a careful review of the oral and written evidence I failed to see any “Reasonable cause” for granting an extension beyond the 6-month limit and I accordingly deem the claim to be Out of Time.
As such it is Not Well founded and must be set aside.
Publication of Names of Parties.
It was agreed that the proceedings would be anonymised in any WRC publications of the findings.
Background:
The issues in contention concern an allegation of Discrimination on the grounds of; Provision of Accommodation, Civil Status, Family Status and Housing Assistance |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was a Tenant in a North Dublin property for a period from November 2011 to her eventual vacation of the property in June 2018. She notified her Landlord in October 2017 that she was applying for HAP assistance. The Landlord unreasonably withheld the forms and when they were returned on the 27th November they were accompanied, in the same envelope, by a Termination Notice. The rules governing HAP preclude any payment being made while a Tenant is under a Termination Notice. The property was eventually vacated in June 2018 and remains unoccupied. The reasons given for the Termination “Use by a Family member” are not valid and this was a clear case of Discrimination against the Complainant on her HAP grounds as well as her Civil and Family Status. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
Notwithstanding the Time Limits issue the Respondent Landlord was well aware of the Complainant’s Social Welfare and Family Status position since 2011. The Respondent was aware that the Complainant had been in receipt of Social Welfare rent assistance for a considerable period of the Tenancy. Accordingly, any claim of Discrimination regarding HAP in November 2017 must be completely unfounded. The Respondent was retiring from a position in the West of Ireland and accordingly wished to occupy her Apartment in Dublin. Discrimination, as defined in the Act, could not be said to have occurred. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
As the Complaint is deemed to be Out of Time under Section 21 of the Act I find the Claim is Not Well Founded and is accordingly dismissed. |
4: 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.
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Summary Decision / Please refer to Procedures Section & Section Three above for detailed reasoning. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00023047-001 | Claim is Out of Time and is accordingly not Well Founded. Claim is Dismissed |
Dated: 28/06/19
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
|