ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032555
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | David Mc Carthy | MD Property Lettings |
Representatives | Self | Siobhan Gaffney BL instructed by Brenda Dunne Liston & Company Solicitors |
Complaints:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00043179-001 | 22/03/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/04/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maria Kelly
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000,following the referral of the complaints to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaints and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaints.
The first hearing was scheduled for 27 August 2021. The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the Workplace Relations Commission as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. I explained to the parties the procedural changes arising from the decision of the Supreme Court in Zalewski v Adjudication Officer & ors [2021] IESC 24 and gave them the opportunity to consider the changes. The complainant and the respondent indicated they understood the procedural changes. The complainant represented himself and made an affirmation to tell the truth. The complainant stated that he had documents to prove he was discriminated against, and he wished to submit these documents. I adjourned the hearing and gave the complainant three weeks to submit the relevant documents and, if he wished, a short submission. I gave the respondent three weeks to make a replying submission.
The WRC received a letter from the complainant on 24 September 2021 requesting a further two months to submit the relevant documents as due to a family emergency he had been unable to access the documents. The extension of time was granted. The complainant subsequently submitted copies of documents that he had provided to the respondent when applying for a tenancy. The documents included a reference, confirmation of his employment and extracts from bank statements.
The hearing was scheduled to resume in person on 05 April 2023 at 10.30. At the scheduled time there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant. The respondent’s representatives counsel, solicitor and witness attended at the scheduled time. I told the respondent’s representatives that I would delay the hearing for twenty minutes. I checked the file and noted that the complainant had been notified of the date, time and location of the hearing by letter to the email address provided by him on the complainant form. As there was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant, I closed the hearing at 11.00. There has been no contact from the complainant since the date of the hearing.
Background:
The complainant submitted a complaint on 22 March 2021 under section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 alleging that when he applied for a tenancy he had been discriminated against on the grounds of gender, civil status, family status, age, and housing assistance. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
At the first hearing the complainant stated that he had documents to prove he was discriminated against when he applied for a tenancy. The hearing was adjourned to allow the complainant time to submit the relevant documents. The hearing was scheduled to resume in person on 05 April 2023. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant on 05 April 2023. I checked the file, and I am satisfied the complainant was notified of the date, time and location of the hearing. The letter of notice of the hearing was sent by email on to the address provided by the complainant on his complaint form. The complainant did not attend the hearing to pursue his complaint. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent was represented by counsel and solicitor on both hearing dates. Counsel noted that the respondent named on the complaint form MD Property Lettings does not exist. MDPM Limited is a limited liability company which carries out the role of a real estate management company. The company is not a landlord but may be employed by a landlord to carry out viewings of properties. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant did not attend the hearing on 05 April 2023 to pursue his complaint. I am satisfied the complainant was notified of the date, time and location of the hearing. The letter notifying the complainant of the date, time and location of the hearing was sent by email to the address provided by him on his complaint form. I decide the complaint is not well founded as the complainant did not attend the hearing to pursue his complaint and did not present evidence the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct. |
Decision:
Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.
There was no appearance by or on behalf of the complainant at the hearing on 05 April 2023. I am satisfied the complainant was properly notified of the date, time and location of the hearing. I decide the complaint is not well founded as the complainant did not attend the hearing to pursue his complaint and did not present evidence the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct. |
Dated: 26 April 2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Maria Kelly
Key Words:
Equal Status Tenancy No appearance by complainant |