Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Anamaria Maxim

Satis Delivering Excellence Limited / Satis Property

Representatives

Marius Marosan

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00026293-001

14/02/2019

The complainant in this case claims that she was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground under Section 3(3B) and in terms of Section 6(1)(c) of the Equal Status Act 2000.

In December 2018, when she responded to an advertisement on Daft.ie, the complainant went to view a property and she was then informed that the she had been accepted as a tenant.   When she told the respondent that she was in receipt of the housing assistance payment (HAP), the respondent informed her that the property was given to another applicant who paid the deposit before her. Three weeks later, the same apartment was advertised for rent again and the complainant contacted the letting agency to remind them that she had been offered the property previously. She was told that she was welcome to attend a viewing again and to re-apply. She attended the viewing and met the respondent and reminded her that she was offered the property less than four weeks earlier. The respondent accused the complainant of verbally attacking her at the viewing.   She was invited to forward her application again, but she decided not to proceed.

Chronology of Events Leading to this Complaint

December 7th 2018

Having viewed a property advertised on Daft.ie the previous day, the complainant replied to an e- mail from the letting agency and she sent the information requested by the respondent. This consisted of her PPS number, copies of her ID, bank statement, a landlord’s reference and a utility bill.

December 10th 2018

The respondent sent the complainant an e mail saying:

“The owner wishes to proceed with yourself. Is it just for you? Kindly advise if you can secure the unit now and when are you looking to move in?   The bank details are herewith attached and please reference the deposit amount with 10 Danesfort.   Finally, can you fill out the form and return it to us asap?”

December 11th 2018

At 12.41, the complainant replied as follows:

“I am approved with emergency homeless HAP for €1,875 which is payable immediately and your property looks just perfect for my needs. I am a full-time working single mom, the apartment will be for me and my daughter and the difference I will pay myself direct debit. Just let me know and thank you.”

At 12.50, the respondent sent the following e mail to the complainant:

“I am sorry to say we had another party pay a deposit yesterday, as I did not hear back from you till now. The owner went ahead with this party. Should I get any similar units, I will be in touch with you asap.”

January 2nd 2019

The complainant saw the same property advertised on Daft.ie. She wrote to the respondent and asked her if she had any chance of renting it now.

January 3rd 2019

When she didn’t get a reply, the complainant sent another mail asking if she could rent the property.   She also sent the respondent a copy of the e mail of December 10th in which the respondent said that the owner of the property “wishes to proceed with yourself.” The respondent replied saying, “I told you I rented it because of the delay in you returning to me after I offered it to you. If you wish to reapply, please proceed.”

The complainant replied and said that her situation has not changed and she was still a HAP applicant and she asked if she should proceed. The respondent said that the “previous party pulled out so we advertised it again.” She said that if the complainant applied again, she would forward her application to the owner.

January 4th 2019

Around 2.00pm, the complainant went to see the property again. She said that she spoke with the respondent and reminded her that she had seen the property and had been approved for a tenancy by the owner on December 10th.   At 3.10pm, the respondent sent an e mail saying “lettings are on a first come, first served basis.” She also said that she was “so surprised you felt it ok to attack me in front of almost 12 persons…” She advised the complainant to forward her application for consideration by the landlord. Later that evening, the complainant replied as follows:

“I don’t understand why you said that I have attacked you. I just asked you if you remembered me and when you realise who I am, you just turned away and refused to talk to me. That was the end of it and I have people who can confirm that. I won’t bother you with further e mails. Thank you!”

The respondent replied saying, “your version of events is quite untrue.”

January 8th 2019

The complainant sent an ES1 form to the respondent, alleging that she was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground. The respondent did not reply.

The Complainant’s Position Regarding Discrimination

On December 10th, the complainant was approved as a tenant by the owner of the property she looked at on December 6th. She was not informed that another potential tenant was also approved and that there was a possibility that the offer would be withdrawn if she didn’t pay the deposit immediately. On December 11th, when she informed the respondent that she was a HAP tenant, the respondent told her that another person had paid the deposit the previous day and the offer was withdrawn.

On January 2nd, when the same property was advertised again, the complainant said that the respondent could simply have contacted her to let her know, to find out if she was still interested. The fact that the respondent did not reply to the complainant’s e-mail when she wrote to remind her that she was offered the property less than four weeks earlier, appears to indicate that she was not positively disposed to renting the property to her. If the owner had already approved the complainant for the tenancy on December 10th, why was it necessary to advertise it again?

On the complainant’s behalf, Mr Marosan said that, by advertising the property again, and by arranging a new viewing for the property, the respondent seemed to have no other purpose than to rent it to someone other than the complainant.

The Respondent’s Case that Discrimination has not Occurred

At the hearing, the respondent said that she rents properties on a first come, first served basis. She said that, on December 10th, as well as the complainant, she informed another prospective tenant that they were approved for the property. She said that this person paid the deposit before the complainant replied on December 11th, indicating that she was a HAP tenant. The respondent did not provide any evidence of her communication with the person who was offered the property ahead of the complainant. She said that this person pulled out of the agreement shortly afterwards and she advertised the property again on January 2nd.

The respondent said that, on December 10th, she didn’t inform the complainant that the property was approved for more than one prospective tenant and she didn’t tell her that, if she wanted to secure the property, she would have to transfer the deposit immediately. She said that she runs a very busy agency and she hasn’t got time to provide this information.

Although on December 11th, the respondent told the complainant that she would contact her as soon as possible if she had any similar units to rent, she said that this is “a standard response” and that she couldn’t get in touch with the complainant due to the volume of applications she was dealing with. For data protection reasons, she said that she didn’t keep the complainant’s contact details, and that she couldn’t contact her again.

The respondent’s case is that all her lettings are offered on a first come, first served basis through Daft.ie. In January 2019, the property at 10 Danesfort was up for rent again and she said that advertised it for rent so that she would be fair to all prospective tenants. She does not discriminate, and she feels sad that her dealings with the complainant have ended this way. At the hearing, when she was asked if she had any properties on her books that might be suitable for the complainant, she said that the only property she had at the moment was a four-bedroom house in Castleknock.

When she was asked why she didn’t respond to the ES1 form that the complainant sent to her on January 10th 2019, the respondent said that she thought that she had explained her position in her e-mails to the complainant and she preferred to wait to explain herself again at the adjudication hearing.

The Relevant Law

Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 prohibits discrimination on the ground of being in receipt of rent supplement. This section is to be read in conjunction with Section 3 of the Act which defines “discrimination” in general and specifically defines the new “housing assistance ground.”

Section 3(1) provides that:

“For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur-

(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which-

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned.”

Section 3(3B) provides that discrimination in relation providing accommodation is prohibited under all the existing protected grounds and inserts the new housing assistance ground as follows:

“For the purposes of section 6(1)(c), the discriminatory grounds shall (in addition to the grounds specified in subsection (2)) include the ground 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.”)

Consideration of this Complaint

I have some concerns with the respondent’s explanation in relation to this matter.

When she told the complainant that the owner had approved her as a tenant, the respondent was in possession of all the information she requested regarding the complainant’s identification, references and bank details. Having assessed the complainant’s information, she said that the owner wanted to offer her the property and she said, “when are you looking to move in?” It seems to me that this is not the approach of a letting agent who has also offered the property to another client. I find it difficult to believe the respondent’s explanation that she withdrew the offer to rent the apartment to the complainant because she had another tenant who paid the deposit first. No evidence was presented at the hearing to support this.   The complainant was not advised that the property would be rented to someone else if she didn’t get the deposit in fast, and she was not told that she had to pay the deposit by a certain deadline.

It appears from the respondent’s explanation that the other client paid the deposit between 10.00am on December 10th and 12.40pm on December 11th, although no evidence was submitted at the hearing to support this. I find it difficult to understand why the respondent didn’t contact the complainant as soon as the deposit was paid, to let her know that the offer to rent to property to her was withdrawn. Instead, she informed the complainant of this when the complainant wrote to let her know that she was in receipt of HAP.

The respondent said that, when all this was going on, she was trying to run a very busy letting agency, she has a young child and she also had a personal problem to contend with.   In these circumstances, as she was so busy, I find it difficult to understand why, when the person to whom she said she agreed to rent the property did not rent it, she didn’t simply look at her phone log and contact the complainant. On December 11th, she had said that she would do so. At the hearing of this complaint, she said that this was just a standard response and it appears, that she never intended to contact the complainant again.

At the hearing, the respondent said that she does not discriminate against HAP tenants and that the owner of the property does not discriminate against HAP tenants. She provided no evidence to support this position.

Findings

From the evidence submitted at the hearing, it is apparent to me that the respondent refused to rent a property to the complainant because she was a potential tenant in receipt of HAP. The intention of the legislation referred to in the previous section is to prevent occurrences of this type and to protect tenants who are in receipt of HAP or who are eligible for HAP.

I am satisfied that, based on the facts she has set out, the complainant has established that she has been discriminated against on the housing assistance ground and the respondent has not rebutted this allegation.

In accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, I am satisfied that the complainant has been discriminated against on the housing assistance ground contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Act.   In respect of redress, section 27(2) of the Act has fixed any potential award at €15,000, which is the maximum that may be awarded by the District Court.   In considering the appropriate amount of compensation, I have taken account of the effect of the discrimination on the complainant and her daughter and the fact that she was prevented from moving into an available apartment. I make an order for compensation of €7,500. This is equivalent to what the complainant would have received in HAP payments over four months, if the respondent had made good on her offer to rent her the property she was approved for on December 10th 2018.

Discrimination on the housing assistance ground, HAP