Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Killian  O Brien

Tom Mc Guickian Landlord

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00042364-001

07/02/2021

The complainant submits that he has been discriminated against by the respondent’s failure to complete the housing assistance programme form and that the respondent discriminated against him on the disability ground.  The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The complainant submits that he was discriminated against on the disability ground and on the grounds of housing assistance programme.

The complainant submitted that he has been renting since 2005 and has made no demands on his landlord despite the poor condition of the accommodation.  The complainant wanted the housing assistance progamme (HAP) forms to be completed by the respondent but the respondent did not want to deal with HAP.  The complainant made attempts in April 2020 for the respondent to submit the HAP forms but the respondent failed to do so.  The complainant applied again in 2021 for HAP and sent an ES1 form on 26 November 2020 and again on 8 February 2021.  The complainant submitted his complaint to the WRC on 7 February 2021.

In evidence the complainant said he stopped asking about the HAP form in November 2021 as the respondent would not complete the forms and the complainant is still living on the premises.  At one stage the complainant was told the respondent was selling the house.  The complainant’s loss as a result of the respondent’s failure to complete the HAP form is €80 monthly.

The complainant provided copies of WhatsApp messages sent to the respondent including one dated 27th August 2021 where he advised the respondent “didn’t get answer back from HAP I’d say ring them as ur (sic) missing out” and other messages regarding improvements needed for the accommodation.  The complainant provided a copy of An Post receipt to confirm posting of ES1 form and gave evidence that he omitted to keep a copy of the ES1 form.

The respondent did not attend and did not make contact with the WRC.  I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing and find their failure to attend unexplained.

The respondent did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing and find his failure to attend unexplained.  The complainant submits that he was discriminated against on the disability ground and discriminated against on the grounds housing assistance. 

It is prohibited under the Equal Status Act, 2000 as amended to discriminate on the disability grounds and Housing Assistance grounds in the provision of rental accommodation.

Under Section 3(3)(b) of the Act it is provided that:

For the purposes of section 6(1)(c), 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 (construed 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 ” )..

Furthermore, section 6 provides:

6.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in—

( a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises,

( b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or

( c) subject to subsection (1A) , providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities.

(1A) Subsection (1)(c) is without prejudice to —

( a ) any enactment or rule of law regulating the provision of accommodation, or

( b ) the right of a person providing accommodation to make it a condition of the provision of that accommodation that rent supplement is paid directly to that person.

Under Section 4 “Discrimination on ground of disability.

4.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.

(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.

(3) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers does not constitute discrimination if, by virtue of another provision of this Act, a refusal or failure to provide the service in question to that person would not constitute discrimination.

(4) Where a person has a disability that, in the circumstances, could cause harm to the person or to others, treating the person differently to the extent reasonably necessary to prevent such harm does not constitute discrimination.

(5) This section is without prejudice to the provisions of sections 7(2)(a), 9(a) and 15(2)(g) of the Education Act, 1998, in so far as they relate to functions of the Minister for Education and Science, recognised schools and boards of management in regard to students with a disability.

(6) In this section—

“provider of a service” means—

(a) the person disposing of goods in respect of which section 5(1) applies,

(b) the person responsible for providing a service in respect of which section 5(1) applies,

(c) the person disposing of any estate or interest in premises in respect of which section 6(1)(a) applies,

(d) the person responsible for the provision of accommodation or any related services or amenities in respect of which section 6(1)(c) applies,

(e) an educational establishment within the meaning of subsection (1) of section 7 in relation to any of the matters referred to in subsection (2) of that section, or

(f) a club within the meaning of section 8(1) in respect of admission to membership or a service offered to its members,

as the case may be, and “service” shall be construed accordingly;

“providing”, in relation to the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers, includes making provision for or allowing such treatment or facilities, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

Section 38A of the Acts applies to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires that the complainant, in the first instance, establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred. Where there has been a prima facie case established, the onus then shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

The complainant did not advance the complaint that he was discriminated against on the disability ground and I do not find that the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct on the disability grounds.

The complainant submitted an ES1 form on 26th November 2021 and the respondent failed to respond to same.  The complainant had not kept a copy of the ES1 form but provided a copy of his postage receipt and based on the complainant’s credible evidence I find that the complainant furnished the respondent with the ES1 form, did not receive a response and has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the grounds of housing assistance.  I find that the respondent has not rebutted the inference of discrimination.  I find therefore that the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct and discriminated against the complainant on the grounds of housing assistance by his refusal to complete the housing assistance programme and taking note of the complainant’s monthly loss of €80 monthly, I award the complainant €2,000.

I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of discrimination on the disability grounds and that the respondent has not engaged in a discriminatory act.  This aspect of the complainant’s claim is not successful.

I find that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the housing assistance grounds and the respondent has not rebutted the inference of discrimination.  I find therefore that the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct and discriminated against the complainant on the grounds of housing assistance by his failure to complete the housing assistance programme and taking note of his monthly loss of €80 monthly, I award the complainant €2,000.

Equal status, Housing assistance programme