Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Daithi  O'Raithbheartaigh

Ken Assets Management Limited

Representatives

Rebecca Keatinge, Mercy Law Resource Centre

 Company Management.

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00040383-001

13/10/2020

The Complainant submitted this complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission on 13th October 2020.

The Complainant sent an enquiry to the Respondent about a property advertised as available for rent on daft. In that email, he confirmed he was a single working male seeking a viewing.

The Respondent replied by email and said that the property best suited students and younger people and asked if the applicant (the Complainant) fitted that bracket. The applicant responded by email saying that he did not fit that bracket and raised a concern that he was being discriminated against.

The Complainant received no further contact from the Respondent in relation to a viewing of that property or any other property. The Complainant took note that the same property

remained advertised as available in July 2020. The applicant felt that he had been directly discriminated against due to his age. He was not a student or younger person and was not offered a viewing of the property on the basis that he did not fulfil this criterion. The Complainant felt that he was indirectly discriminated on the housing assistance ground. The applicant was eligible for the housing assistance payment (HAP) as he was at that stage on the social housing list.

Students and younger people are much less likely to be in receipt of such payments;

they are less likely to be on the social housing list as an independent household and therefore eligible for such payments.

An ES1 notification was sent to the respondent but no acknowledgment of receipt or response was

received.

The Respondent refutes that he has discriminated against the Complainant.

The Respondents interaction with the Complainant was very limited.

The Complainant applied for accommodation in Schoolhouse Court in Santry which is purpose built

student accommodation. This was built under section 50 of the Finance Act and the only people that can reside there are full time students.

The Respondent contends that It would be illegal for him to place a non-student in the complex hence his one and only interaction with the Complainant was to ask “Hello - this best suits students and younger people - do you fit this bracket”?

 The Respondent maintains that he is perfectly entitled to clarify same. In addition, they try and match age and gender in the complex. There was a room on offer only sharing with two 19-year-old females. It would be highly inappropriate to organise a share with what now appears to be a much older male.

The Complainant further alleges he was discriminated against on the basis he is in receipt of HAP (housing assistance payment). At no point was this mentioned, the Respondent could not possibly have known he was in receipt of same.

From evidence adduced at the hearing of the complaint I understand that the property in question falls under section 50 of the Finance Act 1999. It is my understanding, that this being the case, such property can only be rented to full-time students.

The Complainant is not a full-time student and therefore could not be considered for the accommodation on offer.

On the grounds of age, the Complainant has not been the victim of discrimination.

On the grounds that the Complainant is in receipt of a housing assistance payment (HAP) he has not been discriminated against.

The complaint as presented is not well founded and therefore fails. 

The complaint as presented is not well founded and therefore fails.