Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Tenant

A Landlord

Representatives

  N/A

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-00041065-001

16/11/2020

The Complainant stated that she was discriminated against by the Respondent as a result of his repeated refusal to accept HAP when she initially requested the payment in August 2019 until he finally agreed to do so in July 2021.

The Complainant stated that she moved into the Respondent’s property in May 2015 and was initially in receipt of the rental supplement. She became aware in 2019 that HAP would be more financially beneficial and asked the Respondent on 1 August 2019 if he would accept this payment but he refused to do so. She continued to seek HAP from him on an ongoing basis thereafter but he refused to engage. In March 2021, she stated that she could no longer afford to keep topping up her rent supplement payments and wrote to the Respondent stating that, as he refused to accept HAP, the only rent she would be paying from then on would be the amount of her rent supplement payments.

She stated in evidence that she could no longer afford to pay the difference between the rent supplement and the rent due to the Respondent because she did not have the finances to do so. She also highlighted that she had paid €5,500 in additional payments over the period from August 2019 to March 2021 that she would not have had to pay if the Respondent had accepted HAP when she initially requested it.

She stated that she received a call from the County Council in July 2021 wherein she was informed that the Respondent had sent in the forms consenting to HAP and said that she began receiving the payment in August 2021.

Despite having been notified of the time and date of the hearing, the Respondent failed to attend and did not make any submission in writing.

The Law

Section 3B of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2016, as inserted by S. 13(b) of the Equality

(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015, states 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”.

Similarly, S. 6(1)(c) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2016 was amended by S. 14(4) of the

Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 to read that:

[S]ubject to subsection (1A), providing accommodation or any services or amenities related

to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities.

The Facts

In evaluating the evidence, I must firstly consider

(i)                  whether the complaint is properly before the WRC and

(ii)                if the Complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to S. 38A of the Acts.

It requires the Complainant to set out, in the first instance, facts upon which she can rely on in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to her. It is only where such

a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the

inference of discrimination raised.

In relation to (i), I find that this complaint is properly before the WRC and has been brought within the requisite time-limits provided by Section 21 of the Acts, including those for giving notice of a complaint and referring the complaint. Specifically, I am satisfied that the Complainant served the ES1 form on the Respondent within 2 months of the continuing contravention. I also noted that the complaint was referred to the WRC on 16 November 2020 within six months of the alleged contravention which was continuing at the time of the referral of the complaint.

In relation to (ii), the complaint is that the Respondent refused to accept HAP when

requested to do so initially in August 2019 and on a continual basis thereafter until July 2021 when he finally signed the forms enabling the Complainant to receive the payment. Having considered the Complainant’s oral evidence, which I found to be wholly credible, I am satisfied that the Respondent refused to accept HAP which he is legally required to accept.

I am satisfied therefore that the Complainant has established a prima facie case and the

onus therefore shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.

Given that the Respondent failed to attend the hearing however, I find that he did not

rebut the inference and that he therefore engaged in prohibited conduct under the Act when he repeatedly refused to accede to the Complainant’s request to accept HAP from 1 August 2019 until July 2021.

As outlined above, I find that the Complainant successfully established a prima facie case of

discrimination on the housing assistance ground which the Respondent has failed to rebut and that he therefore engaged in prohibited conduct under the Act.

Section 27(1) of the Act provides that redress may be ordered where a finding is in favour of

the Complainant. Specifically, it states 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.

Given the real and tangible effects of the Respondent’s refusal to participate in the HAP

Scheme when initially requested to do so in August 2019 until July 2021, when he finally signed the forms, I consider this discrimination to be at the more serious end of the scale.

Specifically, I noted that the Complainant suffered an actual financial loss of €5,500 because of additional monies she had to source to add to her rent supplement over the period from August 2019, when she initially asked the Respondent to agree to HAP, to March 2021, when she reduced the rent she paid from her own funds because she could no longer afford to do so.

As well as the financial loss that the Complainant had to incur arising from the Respondent’s

failure to accept HAP, I noted the considerable stress that this caused her over a prolonged

period of time and that it exacerbated her anxiety disorder. I have also taken this into account in the calculation of my award.

In light of the foregoing, I order that the Respondent pay the Complainant the sum of €8,000 in respect of the prohibited conduct. The award is arrived at having regard to the seriousness of the discrimination and all of the effects of same, namely financial and otherwise, on the Complainant.

Refusal to accept HAP;