ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00019761
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Tenant | Landlady |
Representatives | Self represented | Not represented |
Complaint:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00026166-001 | 08/02/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/07/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 andSection 25 of the EqualStatus Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complaint is that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant in her refusal to complete the landlord section of the application form for Housing Assistance payment. The most recent date of discrimination is 27/09/2018. The complaint was received by WRC on 08/02/2019. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was a tenant of the Respondent from 24th July 2017. He contends that he was seeking the co-operation of the Landlady for Housing Assistance Payment for the duration of his tenancy but the Landlady refused to sign the relevant forms. The Complainant sought the help of Threshold who approached the Respondent and asked for her assistance. The Complainant contends that the Respondent was annoyed at the request but said she would think about it. The Complainant was then advised by the Respondent by text in September 2018 as follows: “I’m sorry but I cannot help. The hap is a long term leasing and we intend to sell the house next year”. In or around November 2018 the Complainant and his wife were given notice to vacate and they vacated the property in January 2019. The house did not go up for sale at that time and has only recently come on the market. The Complainant contends that the Respondent by her actions denied him the opportunity to avail of HAP and in effect discriminated against him by virtue of the fact that he was in the process of availing of HAP. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent, having been notified of the date, time and venue of the hearing called to consider the matter, did not attend. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The issue to be decided is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant under the ‘housing assistance’ ground contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended), by refusing to complete her section of the HAP application form and impeding the grant of HAP to the Complainant. The Law The Equal Status Act seeks to prohibit discrimination in the provision of services 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, which sets out the requirements for a landlord. Section 3(1) of the Act of 2000 provides: “For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur— (a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which— (i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,” Section 3(3B) 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”).” Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 as amended provides: “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”. The Act provides for a hypothetical comparator |
The burden of proof.
Section 38A applies to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination. The complainant was eligible for housing assistance in the form of HAP. The complainant is covered by the protected ground as per Section 3(3B) cited above. The respondent failed to complete her part of the application form which is a requirement for the grant of HAP. The consequential financial detriment is the less favourable treatment relative to a tenant not in receipt of housing assistance and not intent on transferring to the HAP scheme.
I find the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the housing assistance ground.
I must now consider if the respondents have rebutted the prima facie case raised by the Complainant.
The respondent did not attend the hearing. In text messages to the Complainant she stated “The hap is a long term leasing and we intend to sell the house next year”. The Housing Assistance Payment (HAP), Tenant Information states
“Once approved for HAP, the local authority will expect you to stay in the same property for at least two years”
This is a guide. The same paragraph qualifies this by allowing for a change in circumstances which could change the length of the tenancy.
There is no connection between HAP and the length of a tenancy agreement or the termination thereof. There is no minimum period for a tenancy to attract the benefits of HAP.
The evidence as submitted has not managed to rebut the inference of discrimination in the face of their refusal to sanction an application for HAP.
I find that the action of the Respondent denied the Complainant the opportunity to avail of HAP for the tenancy, imposed a financial detriment on the Complainant and breached section 6 (1) (c) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 as amended, specifically at section (3B) which includes a prohibition on discrimination as between two people, one of whom is in receipt of rent supplement and the other is not.
I have found that the Complainant was treated less favourably on HAP grounds.
The complaint is upheld.
I have decided to exercise my discretion to anonymise this decision.
I therefore order, pursuant to S. 27(1)(a) of the Acts, that the respondent pay the complainant €3000 for the loss incurred by 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.
I uphold the complaint. I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €3,000 in respect of the loss sustained by the Complainant.
Dated: 24th September, 2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
HAP Landlady’s refusal to process HAP application for tenant. |