Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Yasser Salim

Mark Scallon

Representatives

Self-represented

 Non-attendance

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00044494-001

04/06/2021

The hearing took place in Lansdowne House in the absence of the respondent.  The respondent did not attend for the hearing.  He was permitted an additional 15 minutes to account for traffic but did not turn up.

The complainant gave his evidence under oath.

A second day of hearing was arranged to ensure that the respondent had adequate opportunity to attend, and this 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 respondent did not attend the second day of hearing.

The complainant submitted that he rented an apartment from the respondent at €1600 per month.  He paid the first month and the deposit up front.  The complainant submitted that he had clarified with the landlord’s agent that he was a HAP recipient.

The complainant submitted that the landlord refused to complete the landlord form for the HAP process.  The complainant submitted evidence in support of his contention in the form of screenshots of texts from the landlord refusing to deal with HAP recipients.  He also submitted that the respondent sent him a text, which may have been meant for the agent, outlining his refusal to accept HAP recipients.

The complainant submitted that he lost out on HAP payments worth €1300 for April, May, June and July due to the respondents ongoing refusal to accept HAP recipients.

The complainant sent the ES1 form to the Respondent on 30 April 2021, within the timeframe laid down in the Act and provided proof of postage and delivery in support of this contention.

The complainant submitted that the respondent accepted the HAP payments since October 2021 (which was backdated to August 2021).

The respondent is seeking compensation equivalent to the amount that would have been paid by the Housing Assistance Payment

The WRC made contact with the respondent who did not attend the hearing of this matter.

The complainant came across as a credible witness, providing documentary proof in support of almost all of his contentions.  As part of his submissions, he provided screenshots of a conversation with his landlord that outline his attempts to access Housing Assistance payments and the landlord’s refusal to accept HAP recipients.

The complainant also played a recording of a conversation purporting to be with his landlord.  I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the complainant’s account or of any of his submissions in this regard.

Having considered all the written and oral evidence presented to me I find that respondent did engage in prohibited conduct by refusing to accept the complainant’s application for Housing Assistance.

The purpose of awards of compensation under the Act is to counteract the effects of discrimination but also to have a dissuasive effect in relation to prohibited conduct.  The complainant submitted that he was out of pocket to the amount of €5,200 due to the prohibited conduct.  Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, I consider that a compensation amount of €10,000 is appropriate in this case.

Having regard to all the written and oral evidence presented in relation to this complaint, my decision is that the respondent engaged in prohibited conduct on the housing assistance ground, and I award the complainant redress in the amount of €10,000.00 which I consider to be appropriate in the circumstances.

Equal Status Act – discrimination on the housing assistance ground established – monetary award