ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021151
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Tenant | Landlord |
Representatives |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
CA-00027969-001 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing:
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) an individual may seek redress in respect of any prohibited conduct that has been directed against him or her by referring a case to the Workplace Relations Commission. It is a condition precedent to bringing any such matter before the Workplace Relations Commission that the individual complainant shall have already notified the Respondent in writing (Form ES 1) of the nature of the allegation and the intention to seek such redress if not satisfied with the Respondent’s response. This Notice in writing shall be brought within two months of the said prohibited conduct or the last instance of same.
A Respondent may choose to reply with an explanation for the treatment by returning the attached ES 2 Form.
Pursuant to Section 25 of the said Equal Status Act 2000 I have had the within matter referred to me by the Director General for the purpose of investigation into claims of discrimination and I have heard where appropriate interested parties and have considered any relevant documentation provided in advance of the hearing and in the course of the hearing. At the conclusion of any such investigation I shall make a decision and if in favour of the Complainant I shall provide for redress (s.25 (4))
Broadly, the Equal Status Act prohibits discrimination in the context of buying and selling goods from and to the public (or a section thereof) and also in the context of using and providing services available to the public (or a section thereof).
Generally, discrimination under this Act is taken to have occurred where a person is treated less favourably that another person is (or would be) treated and by reason of any of the discriminatory grounds (as specified).
Providers of accommodation services are prohibited from discriminating against someone on the “housing assistance” ground i.e. on the ground that they are in receipt of a rent supplement, housing assistance payment or other social welfare payment. The housing assistance ground protects anyone who has applied for and is eligible to receive such payments and applies to existing tenants and those looking for accommodation. Discrimination may take the form of refusing to allow a person look at or rent a property, refusing to accept the rent supplement or a refusal to complete the appropriate forms etc.
In relation to the applicable burden of proof, section 38A of the Acts is applicable to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts which a discrimination can be inferred. It is only when such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.
Background:
The Complainant believes she was actively discriminated against by her Landlord when he refused to continue their long-standing Tenancy arrangement by reason of her request to have part or all of her rent paid through the Housing Assistance scheme. The Complainant initiated her complaint by Workplace Relations Complaint Form dated the 25th of April 2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant gave evidence on her own behalf and was represented at the hearing. I tested the Complainant’s evidence. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent did not attend. I am satisfied that the Respondent had received the ES 1 form and had engaged a Solicitor to represent his interests at the hearing. I am further satisfied that the office of the WRC did give written notice of the intended hearing date to the said Solicitor. No appearance was made at the hearing by the Respondent or his Solicitor. In the circumstances the Respondent did not rebut or refute the Complainant’s complaint. In the aftermath of the hearing I was advised that a filing error had meant that the Respondent’s Solicitor had not noted the date of hearing. This is of course regrettable, but I do not think it is reasonable to have this matter re-listed in circumstances where the Complainant and her Representative have already travelled and attended and await a decision. In ease of the Respondent, I am exercising my discretion and I am agreeing to anonymise these proceedings. |
Findings and Conclusions:
I have carefully considered the evidence adduced and have looked at the supporting documentation and the case law (WRC decision ADJ-00014956) that I was directed to in support of the Complainant’s case. The Complainant entered into a Tenancy Agreement with the Respondent (a school Principal) in and around October of 2016. The property consisted of an apartment. Two years later, the Complainant became entitled to Social Housing Support as approved by Dun Laoire-Rathdown County Council. The Complainant was anxious to draw down on this financial support as soon as might be practical and, asked her Landlord in the course of a telephone conversation to fill out the appropriate paperwork. The paperwork was duly forwarded to the Landlord. The Complainant, who had always enjoyed a reasonably good relationship with her Landlord, was shocked to receive a Notice of Termination asking that she quit the property on or before the 5th of January 2019. The Complainant is of little doubt that the Landlord was reacting to the proposal that the Complainant’s rent would henceforth be partially discharged by the local County Council. There had never been any conversation or inclination before this time that the Landlord intended terminating the tenancy arrangement because the property was being sold or otherwise. Nothing, other than the request to support her application to receive HAP had changed. I have heard a considerable amount of evidence about the Landlord’s treatment of this Tenant from this point forward and it is clear that relations herein certainly deteriorated. It is noted that the evidence tends to suggest that the Landlord only registered this Tenancy agreement in January of 2019 and it has been put to me that this was done for the sole purpose of following the RTB guidelines for forcing an eviction. I understand that the parties have had some dealings with the Residential Tenancy Board, though it is not within my remit to make any comment in respect of that. The Complainant was eventually forced to quit the apartment in and around June of 2019 (on foot of a lawful Notice to Quit). The Complainant gave evidence that she felt bullied and belittled by her Landlord. It is noted that the Complainant was not able to avail of her HAP entitlements for the final nine months of her Tenancy by reason of the Landlord’s refusal to fill out the appropriate paperwork. This has given rise to significant hardship to the Complainant who could ill-afford to pay the rent. I additionally note that the Complainant was living in a state of turmoil and anguish from September 2018 to June 2019. On balance, I am satisfied that the Complainant herein has made out of Prima Facie case of having been discriminated against by reason of her proposal that she would become a Housing Assistance recipient. I am further satisfied that the ES1 form sent in March of 2019 was served within two months of the act of discrimination perpetrated by the Respondent when he served (a legally enforceable) Notice to Terminate the Tenancy. This was the most recent act in a series of discriminatory acts starting with the notification in September 2018 that he intended terminating the Contractual relationship. The Respondent has not rebutted the Prima Facie case raised by the Complainant. The Complainant is entitled to redress. I note that the maximum amount of compensation which can be awarded herein is €15,000.00. In assessing compensation, I can consider the effect that the discriminatory treatment has had on the Complainant. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 CA-00027969-001 - The Complainant has been discriminated against and having regard to all the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to order the Respondent to pay €8,000.00 to the Complainant. |
Dated: November 6th 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Penelope McGrath
Key Words:
|