Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lorna Carr

Paul and Mary McNeill

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00022491-001

08/10/2018

The Complainant has claimed that her Landlord has discriminated against her by their refusal to accept the HAP payment scheme. She is seeking compensation.

The Complainant stated that she became eligible for HAP in April 2018.

On 13th April 2018 she met with the Respondents regarding the on-going renting their property. The Respondents confirmed that they were happy with her as a tenant. They advised that they wouldn’t accept HAP scheme but agreed to discuss it with their Accountant. They referred to tax implications. On 30th April 2018 she and her father met with the Respondents. The Respondents advised that they hoped to accept the HAP payments, but they would need to increase the rent by €300 in cash to cover for the tax losses, thus increasing the rent from €1,275 to €1,750 per month. The Complainant agreed to pay the €300 in cash. On 8th May 2018 the Complainant and her father met the Respondents. The Respondents advised that they would not be accepting HAP payments because of the tax implications. They then named 30th June as the date to vacate the house. She requested that the refusal to accept HAP would be put in writing. On 10th May 2018 the Respondents gave written notice to vacate the premises. She then submitted a complaint to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB)as advised by Threshold. She made enquiries about rent supplement. By now she was out sick from work and was removed from payroll. The RTB hearing was held on 19th July 2018. She received a decision from the RTB and was awarded compensation, but it was not paid. On 6th August 2018 she vacated the premises. On 15th June she sent the Form ES 1 and ES 2 to the Respondent, but it was not responded to. The Complainant stated that the whole episode has been extremely distressing. She had to register as homeless. She stated that the Respondent’s never mentioned their son moving into this property until 10th May 2018. They advised her that they intended to retire to that property, so they were not accidental landlords. She has claimed that she was discriminated against by refusing to accept the HAP scheme and has sought compensation.

They stated that they became owners of this property in 2011. Their son had lived there for about one and a half years. When he left they became accidental landlords. Their son had recently returned to their home and it was the intention that he would move back into the house. The Complainant was aware of their son’s position. Originally a 12-monhth contract was agreed with the Complainant, but it rolled over. When they became aware that her partner had left, they advised her that if she had to vacate the property quickly that it would not be a problem. She would not have to give notice. They were trying to be considerate of her situation. In April 2018 the Complainant showed a HAP form to one of the Respondents. It was agreed that they would look into it. They spoke to their Accountant, as they never intended to become landlords. They had previously no problem in signing the rent supplement form. They decided to decline the HAP as their son wanted a home and they wanted him to move back into the property. They rejected this claim that they discriminated against the Complainant. They declined to rent the property because their son wanted to move back into it. This claim is rejected.

I note the conflict of evidence in this case.

I find that the Respondents had been renting this property.

I find that the Respondents did not immediately decline the HAP scheme. They agreed to discuss it with their accountant.

I note that they only referred to their son moving back at a very late stage, probably until 10th May 2018.

I find that had this been the case they would have signalled it much earlier.

On the balance of probability, I find that the Respondent did state that they didn’t want to get involved with HAP because of taxation issues.

On the balance of probability, I find that the Respondents declined the HAP scheme with the Complainant.

I find that the Respondent has discriminated against the Complainant by refusing to accept the HAP scheme.

HAP scheme