Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Tennant

Landlord/Agent

Representatives

Anthony Hanrahan BL, Stephen Collins Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

Did Not Attennd

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00028414-001

14/05/2019

The Complainant stated that he made an application for a residential property and advised that the rent would be paid by HAP. He received a reply that they don’t take people with social welfare. He has claimed that this was unlawful and he has sought compensation.

The Complainant is an Irish citizen married with two young children. Following the termination of his family’s tenancy in November 2018 he sought alternative accommodation.   By January 2019 he was approved for Homeless Housing Assistance Payment. On 13th February 2019 he made an on line application. He received a response, ”Hi thanks for your interested my property, how many people going to live and are you taking social welfare. He replied “I am registered with HAP and my full rent will be paid by the HAP.. He also advised that he was in full time employment and part time education. 13 minutes later he received the following response, “HI I don’t take people with social welfare, sorry about that”. Having consulted the Residential Tenancies Board he replied to the Respondent pointing out that a landlord cannot discriminate against a person in receipt of a rent supplement, housing assistance or any social welfare payment. Later that day the Respondent replied that” I’m sorry about that, I haver someone going to view the property, I give let you know if they don’t take that”. An ES.1 form was served on the Respondent and they completed a response. It asserted that she was responding on behalf of a friend, her English was not good and stated that she was not aware of discriminating against the Complainant. She pointed out that the apartment would not be suitable for two adults and two children. She stated that she was not aware of housing assistance, didn’t think people on social welfare could afford the rent and apologised. She stated again that it was not her property.

The claim is brought pursuant to Sec 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act as amended by Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 with effect from 1st January 2016 which introduced the “housing assistance grounds” and prohibits discrimination. The Complainant has been discriminated against for refusing to accept persons in receipt of HAP. The Respondent’s statement “we do not accept HAP is a prima facie case of discrimination. The Complainant cited decisions of the Workplace Relations Commission in support. Even if the Respondent was acting as an agent for another person this does not absolve the Respondent of responsibility. Sec 42 of the Equal Status Act clearly envisages both agent and principal being liable for discrimination. This is an clear cut case of discrimination and no meaningful defence has been raised. The Complainant is seeking compensation.

The Respondent did not attend and was not represented.

I note correspondence on file advising both parties of the venue, date and time of the hearing.

I note that the Respondent did not attend and was not represented.

Based on the uncontested evidence I find as follows.

I find that with effect from 1st January 2016 the Equal Status Act was amended by the by Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 which introduced the “housing assistance ground” and prohibits discrimination.

I find that the Complainant was a qualified applicant for housing assistance payment (HAP) and is therefore covered by the prohibited ground.

I find that the Respondent did not accept HAP scheme and clearly stated that in writing.

I find that the Respondent’s refusal to accept the HAP scheme meant that the Complainant could not rent that property.

I find that the Complainant was treated less favourably than a prospective tenant not requiring the assistance of the HAP scheme.

I find that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the housing assistance ground.

I note that the Respondent’s defence centred on the fact that she was not the Landlord, had ignorance of the law and limited use of the Englsh language.

I find that no evidence was presented to support the position that she was not the Landlord

I find that Sec 42 (2) of the Equal Status Act states, “Anything done by a person as agent for another person, with the authority (whether express or implied and whether precedent or subsequent) of that other person shall, in any proceedings brought under this Act , be treated for the purposes of this Act as done also by that other person”.

Therefore, I find that the named Respondent has a vicarious liability under this Act.

I find that an ignorance of the law is not a defence.

I find that I am satisfied from the responses sent by the Respondent that she had a good command of the English language.

Therefore, I do not accept her defence.

I find that the Respondent has breached this Act

HAP denied