Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Megan Smyth

Anne Marie Vaughan

Representatives

Sharon Dillon-Lyons B.L. instructed by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00024429-001

21/12/2018

The complainant is a single parent. She is not currently in paid employment and was residing with her mother but was in receipt of Housing Assistance Payment (HAP).

There were two hearings. A question arose as to whether the respondent had been properly on notice of the first hearing.

The address to which the correspondence was sent was that of the property which was to be let, as this was the only one known to the complainant. In due course the correct address was identified, and the respondent attended the reconvened hearing.

The complainant was experiencing considerable difficulty in securing independent accommodation despite having HAP to the value of €1250 per month. She had also been advised by her local authority that she could ‘top up’ the HAP payment if that assisted her to get accommodation.

She had attended some twenty-five to thirty viewings without success.

She saw an advertisement for the property involved in this complaint which was within her budget and close to her family home.

She contacted the owner who gave her details of the viewing arrangements.

Subsequently she received correspondence from the owner inquiring if she was in full time employment. In reply the complainant told her that she was not but mentioned the HAP income and also indicate a willingness to pay an extra €100 per month.

She received a reply stating that the owner was ‘looking for professionals not on the HAP scheme’.

The complainant contacted her again to check whether this meant she should not attend the viewing and this time the owner stated that she was ‘hoping to get a couple in’.

The complainant replied, telling the owner that her treatment of her had been discriminatory.

The respondent stated that she did not realise that a person in receipt of HAP was protected. She is not a commercial letter and she was motivated by the need to have security of income from two tenants.

The respondent is a separated person herself with two young children, having been left by her husband when one of the children was a seven-month-old baby. When they were together he used to manage the property.

There had been no malice on her part or any intention to discriminate against the complainant.

However, she had not told the complainant that she could not attend the viewing; simply what her preference was.

The respondent made no defence of her actions in this case. Her plea was one of ignorance of the law.

While it can be accepted that she did not intend to discriminate against the complainant this is what she did. I find that her statement to the complainant regarding attendance at the viewing was a clear indication to the complainant that she would not be acceptable as a tenant.

Paradoxically, the reason given for her preference for non HAP tenants; her need for security of income was as, if not more likely to be realised by letting to the complainant whose income source for the payment of rent was entirely reliable.

Nonetheless, her actions breached the protections given by virtue of section 6 (1) (c) of the Equal Status Act, 200 as amended, specifically at section (3B) which includes a prohibition on discrimination as between two people, one of whom is in receipt of rent supplement and the other is not.

The complaint is upheld.

I uphold complaint CA-00024429-001 and order the respondent to pay the complainant compensation in the amount of €750.

Discrimination, Housing Assistance