Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A tenant

A Landlord

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00027399-001

31/03/2019

The complainant alleges that the respondent did not sign his application for Housing Assistance

The complainant commenced his tenancy with the respondent in July 2017.  In August 2017, when the respondent came to register the tenancy, he requested the respondent to sign his application for Housing Assistance which she did not sign for him.  He asked again in December 2017, and again the respondent refused.

In July 2017 the complainant signed a lease for one year.  Relations broke down due to the non-payment of rent, culminating in a District Court order in June 2019 for the complainant to vacate the premises and to discharge the arrears.  This decision was appealed to the Circuit Court in December 2019 and the complainant was directed to vacate the house and pay rent due of approx. €16k.

Preliminary Issue.

The claim was lodged on 31 March 2019.  The complainant says to two alleged incidents of discrimination – both of which the respondent denies – took place in August and December 2017 and therefore are out of time.  The ES1 form was given to the respondent on 7th June 2019.  This form should have been given within 2 months of the incident complained of, and any complaint made under the Act must be made within 12 months of the incident.

Substantive Issue

The complainant posted the forms in relation to his HAP application to the respondent and she brought them with her to meet the complainant in July 2017 and not August as alleged by the complainant. She was confused as to how the complainant might think he was eligible for such a payment because he had stated to her that he was a lecturer in a third level Institute of Technology.  The complainant made no comment and did not raise the issue again.

The respondent has no issues with having tenants in receipt of HAP.

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 facilitate the complaints’ HAP application when requested to do so by the complainant. The housing assistance ground protection comprehended by the Act applies to existing tenants applying for HAP. Discrimination can arise in refusing to complete the appropriate forms.

Preliminary Issues

Section 21 (2)(a) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 - 2015, states that

"Before seeking redress under this section the complainant-

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of-

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant's intention, if not satisfied with the respondent's response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act.”

Section 21(3)(a) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 - 2015, states that:

"On application by a complainant the Director may-

(i) for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant subsection (2) shall have effect as if for the reference to 2 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 4 months as is specified in the direction, or

(ii) exceptionally, where satisfied that it is just and reasonable in the particular circumstance of the case to do so direct that subsection (2) shall not apply in relation to the complainant to the extent specified in the direction,

and where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly."

In the written complaint made by the Complainant he specified the most recent date of discrimination as being 18th December 2018.  In his evidence he clarified that this date was an error and that the most recent date of discrimination was in fact 18th December 2017. The notification did not comply with the notification time limits as set out in the Acts as the alleged offending incident occurred on 18th December 2017 and he did not notify the respondent as required until June 2019. However, Section 21(3) of the Acts provides that, on application by a complainant, the Director may for ‘reasonable cause’ direct that the notification period of 2 months be extended to not more than 4 months or ‘exceptionally’ where satisfied it is fair and reasonable the Director may direct that the requirement for notification shall not apply to the extent specified in the Direction.

The notification in this case was sent more than 18 months after the most recent date on which the Complainant alleges the discriminatory conduct occurred. In accordance with Section 21(3)(a)(ii) the Complainant must show exceptionally, that it is fair and reasonable not to apply the time limit. Therefore I must be satisfied that the case made is an exceptional one and that it is fair and reasonable to dispense with the notification requirements made by the Acts. In coming to that decision I am required by section 21(3)(b) to take into account the extent to which the respondent is or is likely to be aware of the circumstances and the extent of any risk of prejudice to the respondent's ability to deal adequately with the complaint.

In this case the complainant has given two reasons for the delay; firstly, that he was unaware of the requirement; secondly, that his medical conditions should excuse the oversight.

The complainant gave his evidence in a forthright manner throughout the hearing. However, in relation to the time issue he put forward no reason that could be considered exceptional.  Not knowing the rules cannot be considered to fulfil the requirement.  Neither do I see anything in the medical evidence provided that could justify a delay of this magnitude.  Finally, I cannot be assured that the respondent’s ability to deal adequately with this aspect of the complaint has not been compromised by the delay of over 18 months.

As the complainant has not provided persuasive exceptional circumstances, that both justify and explain the delay in notifying the respondent of the alleged discrimination, I am, therefore, not empowered under the Acts to accede to the complainant's request to dispense with the notification requirement. I am satisfied that the notification requirements set out in S. 21 (2) of the Acts, were not complied with, and accordingly, I find that I have no jurisdiction to investigate the complaint.

Section 21 (6) and Section 21 (7) of the Act state;

6) Subject to subsection (7), a claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.  

(7) If, on application by the complainant, the Director is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the complainant's case from being referred within the time limit specified in subsection (6)—

 (a) the Director may direct that, in relation to that case, subsection (6) shall have effect as if for the reference to a period of 6 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 12 months as is specified in the direction, and

 (b) where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

In the written complaint made by the Complainant he specified the most recent date of discrimination as being 18th December 2018.  In his evidence he clarified that this date was an error and that the most recent date of discrimination was in fact 18th December 2017. The complainant made no reference to any efforts made by him to get the respondent to complete the HAP application after December 2017.

The conduct complained of occurred outside of the statutory time limits within which a complaint must be brought which, if the last date of any incident was 18th December 2017, would at the latest, be 18th December 2018.  Accordingly, I do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

In light of the individual circumstances relating to the complaint I have decided to anonymise the decision.

In reaching my decision, I have taken into account all of the submissions, written and oral that were made to me. In accordance with section 25(4) of the Equal Status Acts, I conclude this investigation and issue the following decision. I find that;

The complaint of discriminatory treatment on grounds of age was notified to the respondent outside of the statutory time limits and,

The claim for redress in respect of prohibited conduct was referred after the end of the period of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct

I do not have jurisdiction to investigate this matter.

Time limits