ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00021309
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Joanna Carty | Daniel O'Grady |
Representatives | No attendance | Daniel O’Grady |
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-00027950-001 | 23/04/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 29/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Janet Hughes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, following the referral of the complaint / dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint / dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint / dispute.
Background:
The complaint relates to the provision of rented accommodation in Galway in the period October 2017 to January 2019 and HAP. Date of complaint 23/04/2019 |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant was notified of the hearing at the address provided on the complaint form. There is no other address on record. The complainant failed to attend on the date of the hearing. No evidence was presented to support the complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
As notice of the complaint and hearing were notified to the named Respondent he attended on the advice of his solicitor, who had written to the WRC on 27 May 2019 stating the terms of section 21 (1) were not met by the complainant. From a discussion with the named respondent, it emerged that he was not the beneficial owner of the property or the landlord or the decision maker in this case. He acted as an unpaid go between on behalf of another respondent to whom notice of the hearing was also issued (Adj. 21312 refers). |
Findings and Conclusions:
The first issue which arises in this case, is whether the respondent was correctly named by the Complainant. This may be of relevance in the event of any appeal of the decisions set out below. Having enquired of the respondent of his involvement in the matter, I am not satisfied that he was correctly identified by the complainant as a respondent in this case, even allowing for the fact that the complainant dealt with him during the period in question. He was not the owner of the property, he was not the landlord in this case at any stage and he had no legal standing in the matter. Even if the respondent was correctly named, there was no evidence presented to support the complaint at the hearing scheduled for this purpose and notified to the complainant at the address provided to the WRC and therefore there cannot be a valid complaint against the named respondent in this case. |
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.
On a preliminary point, I decide that the respondent named in this complaint / case was incorrectly named as a respondent and as such, he has no case to answer. The complaint brought by the complaint against the named respondent has no standing. For the avoidance of doubt, in accordance with Section 25 of the Acts 2000-2015 as no evidence was brought by the complaint in support of her complaint on the date and time notified to her at the address which she provided, I decide that there complainant has failed to establish facts from which an inference of discrimination can be drawn and her complaint fails. |