Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Magdalena  Kotecka

Michael Woodlock Flancare

Representatives

Owen Duggan 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-00049449-001

31/03/2022

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent, Michael Woodlock, discriminated against her in relation to her Housing Assistance Payment.

The complainant took the affirmation.

In 2016 the Complainant made an application for HAP. She received it in 2017. It was a very slow process.  She was informed that the payment would start on 1st February 2017. Prior to the process of applying for HAP she was in receipt of a rent supplement. The Council paid that for her. She was directed to apply for HAP by the Department of Social Protection. The local authority covered all of the rent in the amount of €111.90 per week and her contribution was € 24.80. There was no issue until the summer of 2017. She received a letter from the Landlord dated 22nd August 2017 stating that the HAP payment was going to be stopped. He said that she would have to move out and gave her three months’ notice unless she could make the rent payments in full herself. The HAP stopped at the end of September 2017. From that point on she continued to make her contribution in the absence of the HAP amount. From Sept 2017 until April 2020, she paid € 24.80 to the Landlord. That was done following the advice of her representative. Between April 7th and May 11th 2020 she contributed the sum of  €49.80 per week. She did that because the Respondent had started to come to her door asking her to pay the full amount of the rent. She found him very intimidating. Between 11th May and September 2020 she paid the full amount because of the pressure the Landlord was putting her under. Her ex -husband, who was terminally ill came to stay with her for a while towards the end of his illness. He did help her with the payments. She paid the entire amount in until September. Her ex-husband died September 2021. She could not afford to pay the full amount after that. For one month she paid € 100.00 and after that she paid € 50.00, and she continues to pay € 50.00 per week to date. The rent amount has not changed since 2017.

The Respondent wrote to the Complainant on numerous occasions requesting that she vacate the property or that she make the rent payments in full as he was unable to get HAP due to his status with the Revenue. She received a letter on 12th August setting out that the arrears of rent were €12,840.69. Again, on the 30th September she received another letter stating that the arrears were now € 13,486.09. She has not received a letter since then. She finds the entire situation extremely stressful. The total arrears of rent to date amount to €19,130.30.

On 21st January 2022 the Respondent refused to engage with the Complainant’s representative. The Complainant then re-issued Section B of the HAP application form and sent it to the Respondent. He refused to sign it. Then on 26th January 2022 the Complainant’s representative received a call from Ms. Grainne Dillion, the Respondent’s secretary. She said out that matters were outside of the control of the Respondent as the revenue would not issue him with a tax clearance certificate. He wanted to comply, but he could not. Various solutions were discussed and Ms Dolan said that she would come back to him once she had discussed them with Mr. Woodlock. She never did. The complainant then filed her complaint with the WRC.

The Respondent did not attend for the hearing today. The case officer called to make sure he was not experiencing any difficulties logging on. After the third attempt he answered and stated that he was sick and would not be attending and did not appreciate calls from strange numbers and hung up. The case officer attempted to call him back to ask him if he wanted to apply for a postponement if he was too unwell to attend today. He did not answer the call.

I am satisfied that the Respondent was fully aware of the hearing today and for his own personal reasons decided not to attend and/or to apply for a postponement.

The sole issue for determination in this complaint is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant under the ‘housing assistance ground’ contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended).  In relation to the applicable burden of proof, Section 38A of the Acts applies to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred.  It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) has to be read and interpreted in conjunction with Section 3 of the Act which gives meaning to ‘discrimination’ in general across a broad spectrum of grounds and defines the ‘housing assistance ground’.  Specifically, Section 3(1) provides: “For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur- (a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which- (i) exists, (ii) existed but no longer exists, (iii) may exist in the future, or (iv) is imputed to the person concerned,”  Section 3(1)(b) provides for discrimination by association and Section 3(1)(c) provides for indirect discrimination.  Section 3(2) lists the protected grounds and identifies the respective comparators for each ground.  Section 3(3B) provides that discrimination in relation to Section 6(1)(c), namely providing accommodation as set out above, is prohibited under all of the existing protected grounds and inserts the new ‘housing assistance ground’ as follows: “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”).” 

I must consider whether the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination.  This requires her to show that she had been treated “less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds”, in this case the ‘housing assistance ground’, “…which requires that as between any two persons, that one is in receipt of… housing assistance (construed in accordance with Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014)… and the other is not.” 

The Complainant gave evidence that she applied for HAP in 2016 and her application was approved, and payments started in early 2017. She was renting from the Respondent at that time. Prior to that she was in receipt of a rent supplement. All was going well until she received a letter from the Landlord dated 22nd August 2017 stating “It is with regret I have to inform you that unless you are in a position to continue the payments once the HAP payments have finished you will need to vacate the property”. The HAP stopped at the end of September 2017. From that point on she continued to make her contribution in the absence of the HAP amount. From Sept 2017 until April 2020, she paid   € 24.80 to the landlord.

The Complainant then received a second letter on the 23rd October 2017 and a third on the 7th November both of which put pressure on her to either pay the full amount of the rent together with the arrears or alternative find different accommodation.

 Between April 7th and May 11th 2020 she contributed the sum of € 49.80 per week. She did that because the Respondent had started to come to her door asking her to pay the full amount of the rent. She stated that she found him very intimidating. I found her evidence credible in that regard. Between 11th May and September 2020 she paid the full amount because of the pressure the Landlord was putting her under. Her ex -husband, who was terminally ill, was residing with her and he helped her with the payments until his death in September 2021. She could not afford to pay the full amount after that. For one month she paid € 100.00 and after that she paid €50.00 and she continues to pay € 50.00 per week to date.

I note form the correspondence submitted that there is a text message from the Respondent to the complainant which stated “We don’t do business with HAP. Thanks Michael”

On 12th August 2020 the Respondent wrote to the Complainant setting out that the arrears of rent were €12,840.69. Again, on the 30th September 2020 she received another letter stating that the arrears were now € 13,486.09. In January 2022 the Respondent’s secretary called the Complainant’s representative with a view to resolving the matter. She was to discuss various solutions with the Respondent and to revert back. She never did that. That was when the Complainant decided to bring the matter to the WRC. The arrears in rent to date are € 19,130.30

In all of the circumstances I find that the complainant has established a prima facia case of discrimination in relation to the Housing Assistance Payment. There is clear uncontroverted evidence that she found herself in the situation she is in solely because she in receipt of HAP. Some other tenant, not in receipt of HAP would not be in the same situation.  The Respondent was not present at the hearing to call any evidence in his defence. On that basis I find that the complaint is well founded.

I find that prohibited conduct in this case is at the upper end of the scale. In those circumstances I find that the appropriate award of compensation is €15,000.00

The complaint is well founded. I award the Complainant compensation in the amount of €15,000.00

HAP. Prohibited Conduct. Discrimination.