Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ekaterina Koneva

Dng Glen Corcoran

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00017605-001

23/02/2018

The Complainant lodged her complainant with the WRC on the 23rd of February 2018. She claimed she was discriminated against by the Respondent (a letting agent) by reason of her notification to him that she qualified for housing assistance payment (HAP) for a property he was renting for a Client.

She agreed to rent the property and paid a deposit of €600.00 through her friend to the letting agent.

Following her HAP notification, the letting was withdrawn, and the deposit was returned to her.

The Respondent denied these allegations.

The Complainant’s case was that she was looking for a house to rent as her existing lease was ending. She was abroad for part of the rental search. Her friend offered to help her and as her agent he called to different auctioneers in the town enquiring as to rental properties.

The Respondent advised him that there was a house available for rent, but it was not advertised.

The Complainant’s friend viewed this house on the 20th of July 2017 for the Complainant. She was happy to take the house and her friend paid a deposit of €600.00 on the 26th of July 2017 to the Respondent.

Following same, the Complainant sent several emails and texts to the Respondent.   She didn’t receive a response.

On the 11th of August 2017 her friend advised her that the Respondent made contact with him and told him to collect the Complainant’s deposit from his office because the landlord was not happy to deal with HAP and wouldn’t rent the house to her.

Her friend then informed the Respondent that she would pay the rent from her own resources and not apply for HAP.

The Complainant and her friend continued to email and text the Respondent.   On the 16th August 2017 her friend rang his office 8 times. During one of the conversations, the Respondent asked for a reference letter from her current landlady.

On the same day, the Respondent contacted the Complainant by text and requested she give him a call when convenient.   The Complainant rang the Respondent and had a 7-minute telephone conversation with him. This was her first direct contact with him. He asked her to provide a reference from her current landlady. He also told her that the landlord did not wish to deal with a HAP tenant on the advices of his accountant.

The Complainant gave evidence that the Respondent promised her that he would encourage the landlord to take her on as a tenant with her rent being paid under the HAP scheme.

The Complainant returned to Ireland on the 19th of August 2017 and planned to meet the Respondent between the 21st and 22nd of August 2017 to sign the letting agreement.

Over the next number of days, the Complainant tried to contact the Respondent without any response.

On the 24th of August 2017 she received a text from the Respondent saying that the landlord had sourced a tenant himself. Earlier that day she had delivered an ES.1 form to the Respondent by hand.

The Complainant submitted a receipt for €600.00 deposit for the house received from the Respondent dated 26th of July 2017. Handwritten on the receipt was “security deposit Garbally School house via Gary Higgins”.

She also submitted emails between herself and the Respondent and screenshots of texts.

The Complainant’s friend gave evidence. His confirmed that his involvement was only at the start of the negotiation process. He was unsure of the dates that events happened. He admitted he couldn’t remember who told him that HAP was going to be a problem. His evidence was that it was either the Respondent or his secretary. He agreed that this was the no reference in the texts or emails to HAP. He confirmed that this property was the only property for rent in the town and the Complainant was desperate to secure accommodation for herself and her son. He agreed that he was advised of the nursing home’s involvement in the letting of property but not in the way the Respondent was claiming. His evidence was that he was only told that staff from the nursing home had rented the property in the past.

The Complainant wrote again to the Respondent on the 26th of October 2017.   She received a reply from him on the 8th of November 2017 advising that he had responded to her ES.1 form but to her earlier address than she was currently living in.

The Complainant was able to find accommodation eventually, but she had to incur additional costs in her son’s delayed return to Ireland. She wanted to be compensated for same and the effects of the discriminatory conduct on her.

The Respondent’s case is that he was engaged by a landlord to source new tenants for his property. The landlord informed him when the property would be vacant. The Landlord advised him that the nursing home where his wife was employed, may require the property for overseas staff that were due to take up their positions of employment. The Nursing Home had intermittently rented the property over the past number of years. The Landlord instructed the Respondent to “show” the property and line up a possible tenant if the Nursing Home didn’t require the property for their new employees.

A friend of the Complainant Mr Higgins viewed the property for her on the 20th of July 2017. He gave the Respondent the Complainant’s details and he recognised her name.   She had introduced herself previously to him as a self-employed consultant providing advice to Eastern European buyers.

On the 26th of July 2017 Mr. Higgins informed the Respondent that the Complainant was interested in renting the property. The Respondent’s evidence was that he told him that he would require two references as was standard practice and there was no certainty that the property would be available for the Complainant. He explained that he did not have confirmation from the Landlord that the Nursing Home did not require the property for its staff. Mr. Higgins explained that the Complainant was desperate for the property and she wanted to pay a deposit to hold the property for her “should it become available”. The deposit was duly paid over and accepted on those terms.

On the 7th of August 2017 the Landlord informed the Respondent that he was holding out on making a decision until he had confirmation from the Nursing Home that they did or did not require the house. This was conveyed to Mr. Higgins on numerous occasions.

On the 11th of August 2017 the Landlord informed the Respondent that it looked likely that the Nursing Home would require the accommodation for its employees.

Mr. Higgins was contacted by the Respondent’s secretary and told it would be advisable to collect the deposit but that the Respondent would try to assist in finding alternative accommodation for the Complainant.

At no time was HAP an issue for the Respondent or the Landlord.

The remainder of the engagement with Mr. Higgins was to help source alternative accommodation for the Complainant while at the same time checking if the property in question was definitely “gone” i.e. unavailable.

On the 16th of August 2017 the Respondent spoke with the Complainant directly and informed her of the situation as set out above. The Respondent asked her to email references if the Landlord did not proceed with the rental to the Nursing Home or in relation to any other properties that may become available.

The Respondent refuted that he discriminated against the Complainant.   His evidence was that he went out of his way to facilitate her and Mr. Higgins as much as possible.

His evidence was that she was always second in the “running” for the accommodation. The Nursing Home had priority and ultimately the Landlord made the decision to rent the property to the Nursing Home staff.

The Respondent offered to help source alternative accommodation for the Complainant and his evidence was that most landlords had no difficulty in dealing with tenants who are in receipt of HAP as the rent was paid through a government agency into the landlord’s bank account every month.

The first question to be answered in this case is whether the Complainant has established a prima facia case that she was discriminated against on the HAP ground as alleged.

Considering the facts presented to me by the Complainant, she has demonstrated that a prima facia case exists that discrimination did take place due to her being in receipt of the HAP payment.

I must then look to see if the Respondent produced sufficient evidence to rebut this finding.

There was divergence in the evidence as to what was advised to the Complainant’s agent when he initially enquired about a property for her to rent and the information relayed to him at the time of viewing and at the time he paid a booking deposit on her behalf.

The Respondent and the landlord gave evidence that the Nursing Home always had priority in the letting of this property due to their past relationship in renting the property and the employment link that the landlord’s spouse had with the nursing home.

The case presented by the Respondent is that the Complainant was made fully aware of this at all stages during the process and she proceeded to arrange the viewing and pay the deposit on the basis that if the property was not rented by the nursing home staff, she would be next in line to rent the property.

The evidence of both parties is totally at variance with each other.

The friend and witness for the Complainant gave evidence that he was told of some involvement of the nursing home in the past, but it wasn’t advised to him that the nursing home was going to have priority in the letting and that the Complainant was only going to be a “back up” tenant if the nursing home staff didn’t take the property. While the witness came across as very obliging to the investigation process, I wasn’t entirely convinced by his evidence.

Similarly, I found the evidence of the Complainant to be not as convincing as that of the Respondent.

I found the evidence of the Respondent to be credible and the on the balance of probabilities I accept his evidence as what took place.

I do appreciate that this was a very stressful period for the Complainant in which she was desperate to organise accommodation for herself and her family.  

I find that the complaint is not well founded.

HAP, Housing Assistance payment, Discrimination