Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Mortgage Applicant

A Local Authority

Representatives

none 

none 

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00034933-001

29/02/2020

The complainant is claiming that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the civil status ground contrary to the provisions of the Equal Status Act 2000 in relation to the provision of a service.

The complainant is a German citizen and he is working and residing in Ireland. His wife is a Chinese national and is a stamp 4 Visa holder. He said he and his wife wished to buy a house and he applied to the Government scheme called Rebuilding Ireland Home Loan which is administered by the respondent County Council. He said his wife is a non-EU citizen and is a stamp 4 Visa holder and was not eligible according to the rules of the scheme to make a joint application for the loan. He said he understood from the Department of Housing that he was eligible apply for the loan as a single applicant even though he was married. He lodged his application for the loan with a representative of the Council on the 26th of September 2018. He was told at that time he was ineligible to apply as a single applicant because he was married and that he would have to apply for the loan jointly with his wife.  

On the 15th of October the complainant wrote to enquire about matter and in response he was told that as he was married he must apply for the loan jointly with his wife. The letter went on to say that the Local Authority was still awaiting instructions from the Department of Housing and they could not accept applications from stamp 4 Visa holders. He was informed that his application could not be accepted, and it was returned to him. 

The complainant’s solicitor wrote to the respondent alleging that the complainant was discriminated against and referring to a Decision of the Equality Tribunal which he said was applicable to the facts in this case. The solicitor then made another application for the mortgage in the complainant’s sole name. The complainant says that no response was received this application despite emailing the respondent enquiring about his application on several occasions. The complainant submits that he was discriminated against and a civil status ground. He said that he was not allowed to apply as a marriage person and their joint names because his wife had a stamp 4 Visa And he was not allowed to apply in his sole name because he was married. 

The respondent said that Rebuilding Ireland Home Loan scheme was introduced by the Minister for Housing under SI no 25/2018. The County Councils were given the responsibility to administer the home loan schemes. The credit policy and eligibility criteria were set out by the Department.  A single person and married couples can apply for loans to purchase a house provided their income was below a certain level and the price of the house is within the maximum set. 

The complainant who is married applied for a mortgage in his sole name. He was told in a letter dated 24th of October 2018 that he must apply jointly with his wife and stamp 4 Visa holders were ineligible to apply at that time. The respondent stated that stamp 4 Visa holders were not considered because a person did not have the right to remain in Ireland on a long-term basis. There was no facility for the complainant’s wife to give consent to the complainant to apply for the loan in his sole name in accordance with the family home declaration. The complainant was informed that for these reasons his application for the loan could not be accepted at this time. In response to correspondence from the complainant, the respondent wrote to him on the 27th of March 2019 informing him that the Department of Housing had determined that an application for a loan from a married person in their sole name could not be accepted.

 The respondent stated they had no further correspondence from the complainant until the 26th of January 2020 when he notified them under the Equal Status Act of his complaint of discriminatory treatment. In response to that notification, the respondents told the complainant that the policy in relation to applicants with a stamp 4 Visa had changed and his wife was now in eligible to make a joint application with him for a loan.

The respondent denies that the complainant was discriminated against on the civil status ground in relation to his application for a mortgage.

The complainant is claiming that he was discriminated against on the civil status ground contrary to the terms of the Equal Status Act 2000, in relation to his application for a mortgage loan. The first matter I must consider is whether the notification and the referral to the WRC complies with the statutory time limits. The complainant claims that there was ongoing discriminatory treatment and the referral complies with the statutory timeframe.

 Section 21(2) provides that the notification of the prohibited contact should be served on the respondent within two months after the last occurrence of the allege discriminatory treatment. Section 21(3) provides for an extension of the two months to 4 months if reasonable cause can be shown for the delay in referring the complaint. 

Section 21(6) provides:

“(a) Subject to subsections (3)(a)(ii) and (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.

(b) On application by a complainant the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court may, for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant paragraph (a) 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, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly”.

 I note that on the 24th of October 2018, the respondent wrote to the complainant saying that his mortgage application could not be considered as he must apply jointly with his wife. On the 27th of March 2019, the respondent wrote to the complainant to tell him that an application in his sole name cannot be accepted as he is married.

I note that the complainant emailed the respondent on the 28th of September 2018 and again on the 3rd of October 2018 raising discriminatory treatment and referring the respondent to a decision of the Equality Tribunal, which he believed was a relevant to his case. The complainant’s solicitor wrote to the respondent on the 30th of November 2018 alleging discriminatory treatment contrary to the Equal Status Act and referring to the aforementioned decision. A further application was made by the complainant’s solicitor on the 4th of December 2018. The complainant was informed on the 27th of March 2019 that as a married person he was not eligible to apply in his sole name. A notification under section 21 was served on the respondent on the 26th of January 2020 and the complaint was referred to the WRC and received on the 29th of February 2020.

I am satisfied that the last act of the alleged discrimination occurred on the 27th of March 2019 when the complainant was told that “single application from married persons cannot be accepted”.  The refusal of a service took place on that date and there was no further application for a mortgage or refusal of an application.  The fact that the respondent retained the documentation in relation to the second mortgage application does not amount to ongoing discrimination because the application was refused in the letter of the 27th of March as set out above.  Therefore, the 6 month time limit for referring a complaint to the WRC started to run from the 27th of March 2019 and expired on the 26th of September 2019.  Therefore, the complaint received by the WRC on the 29th of February 2020 is outside the statutory time limit. An extension of the time limit by a further six months under section 21 of the Act does not arise as a complainant has shown no reasonable cause for the delay in referring the complaint. 

I find therefore, that I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

I find that the complaint was referred outside the statutory time frame pursuant to section 21(6) of the Equal Status Act 2000. Therefore, I have no jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

Equal Status Act 2000, civil status ground, section 5 provision of a service, section 21(6) time limits for referring a complaint.