Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Teresa Zawadzka

St. Declan's (Ashbourne) Credit Union Limited

Representatives

Donal Holohan Maguire McClafferty Solicitors

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-00035913-001

28/04/2020

The complainant attended the credit union to apply for a loan on 2nd December 2019. She was informed that it would not be granted because she did not speak fluent English and was told by the attending staff member that she should go back to school to learn the language.

The complainant opened an account with the respondent in 2014 and availed of their services without incident until the date of the matter in question, namely 2nd December 2019. She had previously sought loans from the respondent and had always been accompanied by someone who could speak fluent English given her relatively poor command of the language. She never had a difficulty in being granted these loans and had always repaid them in timely manner.

On 2nd December 2019, when the complainant attended the credit union to get a loan for €3,000 she was informed that she would not be granted one because she could not speak fluent English. She was also told by the attending staff member that she should go back to school to learn English. When the complainant’s daughter queried this and informed the staff member that she would be unlikely to learn English given her age, she was informed that she would never be afforded a loan facility by the respondent.

In light of this, the complainant wrote to the respondent on 6th December 2019 seeking an explanation for the refusal given that she had previously availed of loan facilities in the past without any issue. While an acknowledgement letter was received by the complainant on 17th December 2019, she did not receive a comprehensive reply to her letter until 4th February 2020 wherein the respondent apologised for her negative experience but stated that “using our existing procedures it would neither be legal nor ethical to issue a loan to a member who does not have fluent English”.

Despite a subsequent request from legal representatives of the complainant for a copy of these procedures, it was confirmed in a phone call from the respondent that there were no such procedures in place.

The complainant met with a Loans Officer of the credit union on 2nd December 2019 in order to apply for a loan. Given that she could not speak English and that her daughter who accompanied her was not authorised on her account, the Loans Officer contacted the manager who in turn contacted the Compliance Officer. She urged to proceed with caution given that the complainant had no English language and could not confirm that she understood the implications of either entering into a legally binding contract or defaulting on the loan.

The respondent therefore believed that there could be difficulties further down the line as the contract entered between the two parties would have no standing in law given that the complainant did not understand the implications of it as she did not speak fluent English. On this basis the loan was refused.

The complainant subsequently closed her account that day and as a result the respondent believed that there was very little else that could be done. It was however recognised afterwards that more could have been done with the member on the day in question to discuss translating documents or engaging the services of an interpreter.

Preliminary issue – Notification

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.”

I note that while the Complainant did not submit the ES1 notification form until 14th February 2020, more than 2 months after the instance of alleged discrimination occurred on 2nd December 2019, she did write a letter to the respondent on 6th December 2019. This correspondence outlined the details of the incident and highlighted that she felt discriminated against. In order to ensure that it meets the notification requirement under Section 21(2), I must be satisfied however that it sets out:

(i) the nature of the allegation, and         

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

While the letter of the 6th December 2019 provides details of the incident of 2nd December, crucially however, it does not make any reference either to the Equal Status Acts or to seeking redress under the Equal Status Acts.

I must conclude therefore that the letter of 6th December does not meet the requirements of a notification as prescribed under Section 21 (2).

As the notification requirements set out in Section 21 (2)(a) of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015, were not fully complied with, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this claim.

Notification Requirements