Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Fran Winston

Martin Property Consultants

Representatives

N/A 

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-00035979-001

28/04/2020

The complainant submits the respondent did not proceed with her application to rent a property after she said the deposit would be paid through the HAP scheme. The respondent says there were other reasons that the complainant’s application was not successful, unrelated to the HAP.

The complainant says she viewed a property on Friday, 14 February 2020 and later that day sent the respondent an email to say she was interested in renting the property and attached references. The respondent replied asking if she would like to pay a deposit to secure the property. The complainant confirmed she would and explained she would be paying it through the HAP scheme and asked if she could drop the forms in on Monday, 17 February. She got no reply that day and followed up with 2 more emails asking when she could drop the forms in. On Tuesday, 18 February the respondent told her the landlord had decided to go with another tenant. She asked why and got no response. She looked on Daft and the advert for the property was updated after she was told the landlord had picked someone else and was still on the website up to 27 February.

The complainant submits it is clear the respondent’s refusal to rent her the property was because she said she would be paying the deposit through the HAP scheme.

She also referred to a previous application to rent a property through the respondent in November 2019. The complainant says she viewed the property and told the respondent she was interested in renting it but heard nothing when she said she qualified for HAP.

The respondent confirmed the complainant viewed the property on 14 February. They provided copies of emails between them and the complainant following the viewing. Their email on 18 February states “Unfortunately, the landlord has picked a different applicant.”

The respondent said the complainant and two others had confirmed they were prepared to pay a booking deposit. They forwarded the details of these three to the landlord. He checked the references and looked up information on the three. He then informed the respondent that they were not to rent the property to the complainant. They submit the decision not to rent the property to the complainant was unrelated to her availing of the HAP Scheme.

They say that property adverts are kept live until the contract is signed and in this case the advert was updated automatically.

Regarding the incident in November 2019 the respondent said the complainant was invited to the viewing and this had nothing to do with 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 participate in the HAP scheme when requested by the complainant.

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. 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 3B of the Equal Status Acts states: …… 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 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 ”).

The complainant is not pursuing the incident in November 2019. Therefore, I am only considering the incident in February 2020 when the complainant contends her request to rent the property was dropped by the respondent when she told them she would be paying the deposit through the HAP scheme. Whilst, the respondent contends the decision not to proceed with the complainant was made by the landlord for reasons unrelated to the HAP scheme.

Unfortunately, the landlord was unable to give evidence at the hearing as he had recently deceased. Also, there was no correspondence to confirm the reason for his decision. However, the respondent did provide an extensive list of properties which they manage on which the accept HAP payments.

I have considered all the evidence put before me, both oral and written. My conclusion is that the respondent did not refuse to participate in the HAP scheme. I accept their evidence that they were informed by the landlord not to rent the property to the complainant for reasons not related to the HAP scheme.

For the reasons given above I find that the respondent did not discriminate against the complainant on the housing ground and the complaint is not well founded.

Housing Assistance Payment