Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Selim  Arafa

Mr Joseph Hughes

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Tenant

Landlord

Representatives

  Self-represented

 Self-represented

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00031840-001

25/10/2019

The complainant submits that the respondent has discriminated against him contrary to section 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act as amended by Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015,which introduced the “housing assistance grounds”.

The respondent refused to complete the landlord section of the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) form

 The last act of discrimination occurred on the 17 September 2019.

The complainant submitted his complaint tot h WRC on the 25 October 2019.

Background.

The Complainant referred a complaint under Section 21 of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 to the Workplace Relations Commission on 25 October 2019.

The complainant took up a tenancy with the respondent landlord on 9 May 2017.  He paid a monthly rent of €1050 at the relevant time.

Complainant’s evidence.

The complainant states that from the 25 March 2019 the respondent landlord failed to support the complainant’s application for HAP and complete the landlord section of the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) form up until 10 October 2019 when he signed the form.

On 25 March 2019 the complainant asked the landlord to sign the HAP form. He gave the form to the respondent the following day, 26 March. The complainant in evidence stated that he made three further efforts to get the landlord to sign the form between the 1 and 11 April. The landlord told him that he did not have time to sign it and that he needed to get an agent involved to advise if he should do it. He further explained his hesitancy to the complainant by stating that the housing authorities would ask him to do a lot of work in the place and this will cost him a lot of money, the rent at €1050 per month is too low and he might sell the property. The final reason for failing to sign the HAP was that the complainant had permitted his apartment to be used as the registered company address for a relative’s business. The respondent asked the complainant to stop using the landlord’s property for business purposes. The complainant did this on 10 May 2019. A notice from the Companies Registration Office, dated 17 May, confirming a change in the registered office of the company, was submitted in evidence.  

The respondent landlord signed the HAP forms on 10 October 2019.

The complainant submitted an ESI form on 23 August 2019. The respondent replied on 17 September 2019.The complainant cites this as the date of the last act of discrimination.

The complainant is seeking compensation to the amount of €524 per month from 25 March to the 10 October 2019 which is the difference between the €1050 monthly rent which he paid to the landlord and €526- the rent which he would have paid had he been in receipt of HAP.

He is also seeking an apology from the landlord for personal comments contained in the ES.2 response.

Respondent’s evidence.

The respondent denies that he discriminated against the complainant on the HAP grounds. The respondent ultimately signed the form on 10 October. He confirmed that he received the ES.I form on 23 August 2019.

The respondent agreed to sign the HAP form on condition that the complainant ceased allowing the property to be used as a business address. The complainant failed to comply with his obligations to the tenancy by allowing his apartment to be used as a business address for friends/ relatives of the complainant. The respondent’s address was cited as the address for a painting company without his knowledge or consent. The address of his property in which the complainant resides was submitted to Revenue as the company address for this painting and decorating company. The respondent requested the complainant to cease this arrangement. The complainant did so in June 2019 with the CRO, but the Google map and address of the painting company still identified the respondent’s property as the business address up until July 2019. The respondent found the complainant to be evasive and less than frank about this matter stating that it was nephews, then his cousin, then his friends who ran the painting company.

The respondent had to keep chasing up various sites to establish that his property was no longer associated with the painting company. This was an illegal use of his property which could have incriminated him and compromised his insurance arrangements.

The respondent also objected to what he called “visitors” staying in the complainant’s apartment without his agreement.

The complainant did not pay the agreed rent for September 2019.

The respondent has a tenant in receipt of housing assistance in his property.

The issue for determination in this complaint 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 complete the landlord section of the complainant’s HAP application form.

As a preliminary step to invoking the jurisdiction of the WRC to adjudicate upon a complaint under the Act, the complainant must submit an ES.1 form to the respondent.

Relevant law.

Section 21 of the Act of 2000 provides as follows:

“ (2) Before seeking redress under this section, the complainant—

                             (a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted 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 by referring the case to the Director,

                             and

                             (b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

                             (3) If, on application by the complainant, the Director is satisfied—

                             (a) that exceptional circumstances prevented the complainant from notifying the respondent in accordance with subsection (2), and

                             (b) that it is just and equitable, having regard to the nature of the alleged conduct and to any other relevant circumstances, that the period for doing so should be extended beyond the period of 2 months provided for in that subsection,

                             the Director may direct that, in relation to that case, 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; and where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly”.

The complainant identifies the first date of discrimination as the 25 March with this first instance being the refusal to sign the form and the last date, the 17 September 2019, being the date of the respondent’s explanation for the refusal to complete the HAP application form. I accept that the two alleged instances were part of a continuum,

However, there is a problem for the complainant in complying with section 21.

The complainant lodged the ES.1 form on 23 August 2019. The complainant identified the first act of discrimination in his complaint form as the 25 March. His written submission indicates that he made requests to the respondent up to the 11 or 12 April. No case was made for an extension of time as permitted by section 3(a) and (b). The ES.1 form was submitted more than four months after the latest date of discrimination of the 12 April.

The second and last alleged instance of discrimination- the respondent’s explanation for failing to complete the HAP application form, set out in ES.2 form, - occurred on 17 September 2019. But the ES.1 form was submitted on the 23 August, three weeks in advance of the alleged act of discrimination and does not meet the requirement of section 21 (2), which requires that the landlord should be supplied with that form two months after the last act of discrimination.

I accept that this was a very protracted effort on the part of the complainant. The landlord was evasive. But complaints coming under section 6(1)(c) of the Equal Status Acts (as amended) in conjunction with section 3 (3B) of the Act, the “housing assistance ground”, mean that they must be heard  within the confines of the statutory provisions. As the ES.1 form was not submitted in compliance with section 21 of the Act, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

I do not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint.

HAP. Non- compliance with section 21 of the Act.