Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kevin-scott Crawford

Thomas Johnson

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Gerard Cullen

William Henry

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00025145-001

21/01/2019

The claimant submitted that he was discriminated against under the Equal Status Act when he applied to rent a property on DAFT .ie when he disclosed that he qualified for the Housing Assistance Programme (HAP) and was denied tenancy on the basis that the Landlord was not accepting Housing Assistance for the property. The claimant submitted details of the property   together with copies of the correspondence exchanged between the claimant and the respondent .When the claimant clarified that he was not in receipt of HAP but that he would be eligible for it the respondent replied “The landlord is not accepting HAP with this property , unfortunately”.The claimant explained that he had heart condition and had been searching for accommodation near a railway line because of his health challenges.t was submitted on his behalf that the response was unequivocal and not just heartless disrespect.It was submitted that the effect of the respondent’s actions caused the claimant significant disruption and expense – he had to obtain a loan to pay for his journeys between Cork and the Northwest and the claimant stated that it was extremely difficult to obtain accommodation for single people in Cork City so he had been obliged to look elsewhere to obtain shelter.The claimant’s representative invoked a number of previous WRC adjudication findings in support of their contention that   a significant monetary award be given to the claimant.

The respondent did not dispute the claimant’s assertions and accepted their “wrongdoing”.In mitigation it was submitted that the respondent’s father had died in March 2019 and at the same time the respondent’s mother was in psychiatric care and had suffered mental health challenges for a prolonged period..The respondent offered the claimant an apology and stated that he had not understood his legal obligations under the Act.The provisions of a decision by Circuit Court Judge Raymond Groarke were invoked in support of the respondent’s contention that the respondent had made an error and had not intended discriminating against the claimant - €1,000 was awarded and additional €1,000 for legal costs in that case.

On the basis of the evidence of the claimant , I find pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Acts , a prima facie case of less favourable treatment has been established by the claimant on HAP grounds. In these circumstances , the burden of proof shifts to the respondent who has not disputed the claimant’s evidence.I require the respondent to pay the claimant €3,500 compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct