Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00024509-001

21/12/2018

The complaint relates to the complainant’s attempt to rent a dwelling from the respondent. The complainant asserts that discrimination occurred when the respondent did not rent the dwelling to him and that this was a contravention of the Equal Status Act on the housing assistance ground. The respondent denied the claim.

The complainant outlined that he saw the advertisement on a lettings website. He telephoned the respondent on the 27th October 2018 and asked about the letting. He was informed that it was available for letting. He mentioned that he would be in receipt of HAP and the respondent told him that she did not take HAP. The complainant sent the ES1 form and re-sent it when the first set of forms was returned. The complainant said he lived in his previous accommodation for nine years and had an impeccable record. He was able to secure alternative accommodation in January 2019.

The respondent acknowledged that the phone number rung by the complainant was her number. She said that she never received the ES1 form as it was sent to the rented dwelling. She would have acted on the ES1 form, as she had reacted to receiving the WRC hearing letter. She learnt of the case in February 2019 as the WRC correspondence also went to the dwelling. The respondent outlined that she could not 100% say what she told the complainant. She had received many calls regarding the letting of the dwelling. There was a fire in the dwelling during a previous tenancy and the dwelling was then refurbished. She said that it was a small apartment and one of seven in the building. The dwelling had been advertised at €875 per month. She did not know that a landlord must accept HAP. She referred to a family member being ill and another one who died of cancer at this time.

Section 21 requires that a prospective claimant notify the service provider in writing of the nature of the allegation and their intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress pursuant to the Act. This notification must be made within two months of alleged prohibited conduct. The complainant provided this notification via his handwritten ES1 form, dated the 14th November 2018. It was addressed to the respondent at the address of the rented dwelling. It was sent by registered post and returned to the complainant as “not called for”. The complainant provided proof of postage. I am, therefore, satisfied that the complainant complied with the notification requirement in section 21.

As amended, section 3B of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 provides:

“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”).”

As amended, section 6(1) and 6(1A) of the Acts provide:

“6. (1) A person shall not discriminate in—

(a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises,

(b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or

(c) subject to subsection (1A), providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities.

(1A) Subsection (1)(c) is without prejudice to —

(a) any enactment or rule of law regulating the provision of accommodation, or

(b) the right of a person providing accommodation to make it a condition of the provision of that accommodation that rent supplement is paid directly to that person.”

Section 38A of the Acts applies to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires that the complainant, in the first instance, establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred. Where such a prima facie case has been established, the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

The Equal Status Act prohibits discrimination in the provision of services. From its outset, the Act prohibited discrimination in the provision of accommodation. The ambit of the Act was extended to include discrimination on the housing assistance ground, i.e. a claimant’s reliance on a social welfare payment. This includes the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) as provided by Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2014. What the Equal Status Act tackles is less favourable treatment of a HAP applicant when compared to a tenant not in receipt of HAP. Discrimination involves less favourable treatment and will not always “be ill-intentioned” and could be “based on an assumption that "he or she would not have fitted in." (see King v Great Britain China Centre [1992] I.C.R. 516).

I accept the complainant’s evidence that he made the telephone call on the 28th October 2018 and was told that the respondent would not accept HAP. This is the essence of the differential treatment that the housing assistance ground seeks to address. The respondent outlined that she could not recall the conversation. While I appreciate that there were many telephone calls associated with this letting, I find that the complainant was told that HAP would not be accepted. The complaint of discrimination, therefore, succeeds as the complainant was the subject of less favourable treatment based on the housing assistance ground.

In assessing redress, I note the complainant’s efforts to find accommodation at this time of high demand for rented housing. He was unable to progress the letting of the dwelling. He secured a tenancy in January 2019. Taking account of the circumstances of the case, I award redress of €1,000.

CA-00024509-001

Having regard to all the circumstances and pursuant to Section 27(1)(a) of the Equal Status Act, I deem it appropriate that the respondent pay €1,000 to the complainant in compensation for the effects of the contravention of the Act.

Equal Status Act / housing assistance ground / HAP