Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David  Blanchard

Barbara O'Donnell

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Threshold

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00044648-001

15/06/2021

The complainant submits that he was discriminated against because of Housing Assistance Programme (HAP) when seeking accommodation.

The complainant submitted that he was discriminated against by the respondent when seeking accommodation with Housing Assistance Programme (HAP).

On 13 January 2021 the complainant’s partner Ms O’Doherty replied to an advert on behalf of the complainant, on an accommodation website and posted “interested in renting do you accept hap I’m currently in receipt of hap and have deposit and first month’s rent immediately etc if you can get back to me thank you”.(sic)  The rent was advertised for a house in Limerick at €1,250 per month and the respondent replied on the same day “sorry I don’t accept HAP”.

On 8th March 2021 Threshold wrote to the respondent with a copy of the ES1 on behalf the complainant, advising that a “refusal to accept a tenant who relies on housing support amounts to discrimination under equality legislation” and requested the respondent to reply on form ES2 within one month.

The respondent acknowledged receipt of the ES2 on 23 March 2021 and her submission to the complainant included that the accommodation is in “a student area and unsuited to familys” and that she thought HAP a non runner as the house needs a new boiler and that she would love a family to live there.  She also submitted in the ES2 that the last couple who stayed there constantly contacted her about the noise and behaviour of students in the area and that she had no recollection of a phone call with the complainant and that she was not aware that it was unacceptable not to accept HAP. 

It was submitted that the respondent had discriminated against the complainant by her refusal to accept HAP.

In evidence the complainant submitted that in January 2021 he was living with mum, dad, child, and partner who was pregnant at the time and that they were looking for new accommodation.  He gave evidence his partner sent the email on his behalf and that after the first hearing when parties had reached agreement, the respondent sent a letter accusing the complainant of many things.  He was shocked that the respondent accused him of being a criminal and that the gardai phoned Threshold about him following the respondent’s allegations. Under cross examination the complainant said he had only taken one case against another person about discrimination on the grounds of HAP.

Evidence of Ms O’Doherty was that she and her partner sent out many emails every day and that it was her who sent the email to the respondent on 13th January 2021 on behalf of her partner as they were desperately looking for accommodation for their family.

The respondent submitted that she did not know the HAP rules and did not know that a landlord could not discriminate against someone on the grounds of HAP.  She submitted that it was unacceptable that the complainant could take as many cases as he wanted against landlords and that made her very upset.  The respondent said that the email came from the complainant’s email address but was from his partner and that this seemed unusual. 

The respondent replied to the ES1 and told the complainant that only students want to stay in her accommodation and that there was an issue with the boiler and that the house would not be deemed suitable for HAP.  In evidence the respondent said that she would love to have a family in the house but nobody except students live in the area and people have moved out because of the noise from the students. 

She submitted that after the first hearing she agreed to settle but her friend said the complainant had taken a case against another landlord and that she was shocked.  She did not want to pay money to someone who could take as many cases as they wanted. The respondent said that she had incurred many bills including her car breaking down and she submitted €50 to the complainant by way of settlement but it was returned and she had been prepared to pay €50 by way of instalments to cover the settlement that she had reached with the complainant.  She wrote to the complainant’s representative on 01 September 2021 saying that the representative was enabling criminal activity as they were assisting the complainant continue his criminal activity.

Under cross examination the respondent gave evidence that a solicitor and the gardai told her it is a loop hole in the law that the complainant can take as many cases as he wants.  The respondent said that she did not look for agreement from the complainant to change the terms of the settlement agreement and pay in instalments.  The respondent denied that she had discriminated against the complainant.

The complainant submits that he was refused accommodation as he was in receipt of HAP and the respondent submits that she did not recall refusing HAP; did not know that to do so was not allowed and that the complainant was refused the accommodation as it was only suitable for students.

The first hearing of August 18th 2021 was adjourned to allow parties to enter settlement discussions.  On 6th September 2021, the complainant requested that the hearing proceed as the respondent failed to honour a settlement agreement. 

The Equal Status Act, 2000, as amended, prohibits discrimination on 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.

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 such a prima facie case has been established, the onus shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

Section 21 sets out the requirement to notify the service provider in writing of the nature of the allegation and their intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress pursuant to the Act. This notification must be made within two months of the alleged prohibited conduct.  The complainant submits that on 13 January 2021 the respondent was asked about accommodation and received a response by email on the same day from the respondent “sorry I don’t’ accept HAP”.  An ES1 was submitted on 8th March 2021 and an ES2 received on 23 March 2021 and the complaint received by the WRC on 13 June 2021.  I am satisfied that the complainant has satisfied the notification requirements.

I note that the request for accommodation was sent by the complainant’s partner but was sent using the complainant’s email address and I am satisfied that the complainant Mr Blanchard is the correctly named complainant. 

Having heard the evidence and submissions, I find that the complainant sought accommodation and set out that he was in receipt of HAP.  The brief email from the respondent states that she does not accept HAP.  The respondent’s direct evidence was that she did not know the law about HAP but that the reason she did not accept the complainant’s application for accommodation was because the area houses students and it would be unsuitable for the complainant and his family.

I find that the complainant’s evidence more credible in all the circumstances and he has established a prima facia case of discrimination and that the respondent has failed to successfully rebut the inference of discrimination and that the respondent, therefore, engaged in prohibited conduct.

Section 27(1) of the Act provides that redress may be ordered where a finding is in favour of the Complainant. In considering the amount of compensation that I should award, I have considered the effect the discriminatory treatment has had on the complainant and his circumstances.  Having regard to all the circumstances I deem it appropriate to order the respondent to pay the claimant €3,000 compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned. 

I find that the complainant has established a prima facia case of discrimination and that the respondent has failed to successfully rebut the inference of discrimination and that the respondent, therefore, engaged in prohibited conduct.  Having regard to all the circumstances I deem it appropriate to order the respondent to pay the claimant €3,000 compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned. 

Housing assistance programme, discrimination