Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Laylah  Beattie

Kathleen Muldoon

Representatives

Dagmar Himler Threshold Advisor

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00040493-001

20/10/2020

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

CA-00040494-001

20/10/2020

The complainant commenced a tenancy agreement with the respondent on 18/05/2020.  She paid a deposit and one month’s rent in advance. The complainant requested the respondent’s building manager to comply with her HAP application in June 2020.  There was a refusal to do so.  After months of trying to get her HAP application sorted the complainant submitted her complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 20/10/2020.

The tenancy in this case commenced on 18/05/2020.  Early in June 2020 the complainant informed the respondent’s building manager that she would be a HAP tenant and provided him with the relevant paperwork.  He advised the complainant that the house was for professionals only and they would not be accepting HAP.  The complainant asked him to reconsider and advised him that she had a right to pay rent via HAP.  She was asked to pay her June rent and the complainant asked about the HAP forms and was told by the building manager that the respondent was not going to fill them out.  When she asked that this be reconsidered she was advised that the respondent would do so when the July rent was paid.  The complainant borrowed money to pay the July rent and when she paid this she was told that she would have to leave.  She was asked what she considered to be intrusive questions about her employment history and why her parents would not pay the rent and was also told that nothing in life comes for free.

The complainant contacted Threshold for advice on 20/07/2020.  Threshold contacted the respondent on behalf of the complainant.  When the complainant next met the respondent, she offered to help her with any forms in relation to the HAP process.  This offer was refused.  After months of trying to resolve the matter the complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC in October 2020.

In February 2021 the respondent filled out the forms and sent them to the designated office.  The complainant discovered that she could not progress the application because when the respondent registered the tenancy with the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) the respondent had put an incorrect surname for the complainant.  The complainant advised the respondent’s building manager of the error who undertook to have the matter rectified.  It was never rectified.

It was submitted on behalf of the complainant that the actions of the respondent and her continued refusal to comply with the complainant’s requests in relation to the HAP payment is clear evidence of discrimination against the complainant.  The complainant is in a particularly vulnerable and precarious situation regarding her tenancy as she cannot afford to pay the full rent without the housing assistance payment which she is entitled to by law.

The continued failure of the respondent to sign the HAP forms means that the complainant has been treated less favourably than another person would be on comparable grounds.  HAP is the primary state support for tenants and the effect of the respondent’s refusal to sign the HAP forms is to imperil the complainant’s tenancy.                                                                                                                                  

The respondent or her representative did not attend the hearing.  There was no communication from the respondent to indicate that she would not be attending or that she had any difficulties on the day of the hearing that would prevent her accessing the remote hearing.

The complaint in this case is that the respondent refused to comply with the respondent’s request to complete Section B of the HAP application. The issue for determination is whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the housing assistance ground contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended), in relation to the ongoing refusal to sign the landlord section of the HAP form.

Section 3(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 (As amended) provides: “For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur- (a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation o any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which – (i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned”.

Section 3(3B) provides: “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 Act and the other is not (the “housing assistance ground”)”.

Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) provides: “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 such services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities.

Section 6(1A) provides:  “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”.

Section 38A of the Acts applies to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred.  It is only when such a case has been established that the burden shifts to the respondent in order to rebut the inference of discrimination.

In this case the complainant was an applicant for the housing assistance payment and is therefore covered by the prohibited ground as outlined in Section 3(3B) above.  The complainant’s case is that she notified the respondent’s building manger in June 2020 that she required the landlord to sign and return the landlord section of the form.  This was refused on a few occasions and when it was eventually submitted it could not be processed as the landlord (the respondent) had put an incorrect surname for the complainant.  The respondent refuses to rectify this.

Based on the uncontested facts as outlined at the hearing I am satisfied that the complainant has established a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment on the housing assistance ground.  Once the complainant has established a prima facia case of discrimination the burden of proof shifts to the respondent.

As the respondent did not attend the hearing I am satisfied that the complainant has been treated less favourably on the housing assistance ground than another tenant who did not require housing assistance.  The complainant is legally entitled to the HAP payment.  It is not the responsibility of the complainant to have to continually pursue the respondent to sign the form and to rectify the respondent’s  error in relation to the complainant’s surname which was given to the RTB.

I have concluded my investigation into this complaint and for the reasons outlined above I find that pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Acts the complainant has established a prima facia case of direct discrimination on the housing assistance ground which the respondent has failed to rebut.

Under Section 27(1) of that Act redress may be ordered where there is a finding in favour of a complainant.  Section 27(1) provides that:

“the types of redress for which a decision of the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 25 may provide are either or both of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances:

(a)   An order for compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned; or (b) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is so specified”.

Under the above section the maximum amount of compensation I can award is €15,000.  In considering the quantum off compensation that I should award in this case I have taken account of the efforts of the complainant to resolve the matter over a period of 20 months and the effects, both financially and personally, that the discriminatory treatment has had on the complainant.  In the circumstances I find that an award of €15,000 is appropriate.

Accordingly, I order the respondent to pay the complainant the sum of €15,000 (fifteen thousand Euro) and to pay this within six weeks of the date of this decision. 

I also order the respondent to complete the signing of the HAP form for the complainant; and I order the respondent to rectify the error in relation to the complainant’s surname that that was submitted to the Residential Tenancies Board and to complete this within two weeks of the date of this decision.

HAP payment.  Landlord form. Discrimination on housing assistance ground.