Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Tenant

A Landlord

Representatives

Karl Gill, CIS

N/A

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00030103-001

07/08/2019

The complainant rented a property since April 2015 with his wife. Having been made aware in November 2018 that they qualified for HAP, they were unable to get the necessary forms signed by the respondent despite having made numerous efforts to do so. The lease on the property was subsequently terminated and the complainant asserts that the termination was due to them requesting HAP.

The complainant rented a property along with his wife from April 2015. He claimed that the rental was arranged through an agent who also managed the property on an ongoing basis. In November 2018, having been informed that they qualified for HAP, he contacted the agent and requested that he ask the respondent to sign the relevant forms to enable them to receive the payment. Having received no response for 2 weeks, the he again contacted the agent who informed him that the respondent was on holiday. He also followed up by text message with the agent on 17th December but received no reply.

Having still received no response, he visited the agent’s office on February 28th to inquire if he had spoken to the respondent about signing the HAP forms. Having been informed by the agent that he had not seen him, the he asked him to send out the forms to the respondent by post. Subsequently, on 16th April 2019, a termination letter signed by the letting agent was sent to the complainant and his wife informing them that the tenancy would end on 15th July 2019. Having received the letter, he telephoned the respondent directly but was informed that he should speak to the agent instead. On 17th April the complainant’s wife met the agent to discuss the termination letter and asked why the respondent had not signed the HAP form but was informed that he did not need to sign it. When she asked the agent to return the form to her, he informed her that it had been retrieved by the complainant, which he disputes. On 26th April 2019, she sent an ES1 form to both the agent and the landlord but received no response.

The respondent denied having been notified by either the tenant or the letting agent that the complainant or his wife wanted him to sign HAP forms.

The respondent stated that he terminated the lease of the complainant and his wife because he believed that he would be required to sell it by his lending institution due to financial difficulties. He also stated that he subsequently rented the property to another tenant on a short term rather than a long-term basis because he needed the flexibility to be able to sell the property if this was required by the lending institution.

Preliminary Point:

Given that the respondent has highlighted in evidence that he was required to restructure his assets by a lending institution and that he wants to maintain confidentiality surrounding details of same, I have exercised my discretion and anonymised both his name and that of the complainant.

Substantive Matter:

The Applicable Law

The sole issue for determination in this complaint 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 its actions.

Section 3 of the Equal Status Acts states that:

3.— (1) 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,

(b) where a person who is associated with another person —

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

[…]

(3B) 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 ” ).

Specifically, on vicarious liability, the Acts state that:

42.—(1) Anything done by a person in the course of his or her employment shall, in any proceedings brought under this Act, be treated for the purposes of this Act as done also by that person’s employer, whether or not it was done with the employee’s knowledge or approval.

In relation to the applicable burden of proof, Section 38A of the Act applies to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Act 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.

Findings

I am satisfied that this complaint is properly before the WRC and has been brought within the requisite time-limits provided by Section 21 of the Acts, including those for giving notice of a complaint and referring the complaint.

I note that the complainant, along with his wife, was a qualified applicant for housing assistance payment (HAP) and is therefore covered by the prohibited ground. I must recognise however that no evidence was presented to me to suggest either that the respondent was aware that the complainant and his wife were seeking HAP or that the HAP form given by the complainant to the agent had been given to him. I therefore find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the housing assistance ground.

Given that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination, I find that the respondent did not engage in any prohibited conduct under the Act.