Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Oleksandra  Kuchera

Martina Byrne

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Vadim Karpenko First National Consulting and Legal Service

Ciaran Hughes Tiernans, Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00040735-001

02/11/2020

This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.

The complainant and respondent were present at the hearing together with their representatives.  The WRC provided an interpreter to translate the proceedings.

The finalisation of this decision was delayed due to the impact of COVID 19.

The complainant submitted that her complaint relates to her landlord’s refusal to approve and sign the HAP application. The complainant submitted that she was an excellent tenant.  She submitted that the landlord agreed to help her and signed her HAP application.  She informed her landlord that the other two tenants were returning to their countries of origin and that she would be keeping on with the tenancy.

The complainant submitted that she was in a precarious position as she was on Maternity leave.  She was not able to leave the dwelling with the other tenants and asked the landlord to reduce the rent.  She submitted that the landlord agreed to reduce the rent however the landlord informed her twice that she took €700 from the deposit amount to cover some of her rental payments.

The complainant submitted that she tried to apply for rent supplement to the relevant authorities but was refused.

The complainant submitted that following the birth of her baby she paid the rent for two months and then applied for housing assistance again.  The landlord agreed and signed the application forms.

The complainant submitted that the respondent told her that she would be bringing in two new tenants to cover the shortfall in rent, however the complainant could not agree to two strangers sharing her accommodation.

The respondent submitted that the original lease for the property was signed in 2017.  The rental amount due in February 2020 was €1800 per month.  In April 2020 two other tenants moved out of the house and there were difficulties in paying the rent in April and May 2020.  The complainant sought to pay her portion of the rent out of the deposit that she had given for the accommodation.  She also sought a further amount be paid from the deposit in May.

Discussions continued and another application was made for the Housing Assistance Payment however, it was unsuccessful as the amount of the rent exceeded the maximum rent permittable under the scheme.  The respondent revised the rent downwards by approximately 20%.

The respondent submitted that alarm bells were ringing as she was informed that the complainant’s maternity was finishing, and the Social Welfare authorities had refused to pay one parent allowance to the complainant.  Notwithstanding this the respondent issued a revised rental agreement at the lower rate of rent and this was signed.

The respondent submitted that she was informed in early September that the complainant had difficulties with her work permit and that she had no income and was relying on handouts.  The respondent contacted the County Council involved and was informed that as the complainant was not in receipt of any income, she would not meet the criteria for awarding the Housing Assistance Payment.  The respondent submitted that she was asked by the County Council if she wished to proceed with the application in the circumstance but indicated that she did not.

The respondent submitted that she was left with arrears of rent by the complainant.

The complainant was refused the housing assistance payment on a number of occasions.  The County Council involved concluded that the complainant did not meet the criteria to qualify for the payment.

Section 3B of the Equal Status Act, 2000 deals with discrimination under the Housing Assistance ground and states as follows.

(3B) 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”).

The respondent submitted that the complainant was not entitled to the housing assistance payment, outlining the circumstances wherein she arrived at this conclusion.  The complainant agreed with the facts of this conclusion as noted by the respondent and was related to the respondent by the County Council.  I note that the respondent engaged with the complainant at each stage of her difficulties, reducing the rent by 20%, trying to find a housemate for the complainant and engaging in the HAP application process on a number of occasions.

As the complainant is not in receipt of housing assistance and is not entitled to be in receipt of such a payment, I find that she does not come within the definition of discrimination related to  housing assistance as provided for under Section 3B of the Equal Status Act, 2000.

Additionally, the complaint relates to the respondents “refusal to approve and sign the HAP application”.  On the basis of the oral evidence of the respondent, which was not contradicted by the complainant, the respondent did not refuse to approve and sign the HAP, rather the County Council, who have responsibility for such matters found that the complainant was not entitled to the Housing Assistance Payment.  The respondent completed the HAP forms on two occasions.

Accordingly, I find that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct as defined under the Act.

Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.

Equal Status – Housing Assistance ground – not entitled to housing assistance – no prohibited conduct.