Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Irina  Artemjeva

Midland Properties

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00050952-001

01/06/2022

The Complainant is a tenant of one of the Respondent’s apartments. On 22nd May 2022, the Complainant issued notification of a potential complaint under the present Act, by way of form ES1. Thereafter, in the absence of a response from the Respondent, the Complainant referred the present complaint to the Commission on 1st June 2022. Herein, she alleged that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of race and the fact of receipt of housing assistance. The “complaint specifics details” section of the form again outlined the alleged deficiencies to the Complainant’s standard of housing.

On 7th June 2022, the Respondent issued a response initial notification by way of form ES2. Herein they denied the allegation that they failed to make adequate renovations to the Complainant’s premises. On 20th June 2022, presumably in on receipt of the complaint form, the Respondent stated that they were unaware of the substance of the complaints and broadly denied the same.

A hearing in relation to this matter was convened for, and finalised on, 28th March 2023. This hearing was conducted by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and SI 359/20206, which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. No technical issues were experienced by either party in the course of the hearing.

At the outset of the hearing, an issue was raised in respect of the notification requirements of the Act.

Section 21(2) of the Act (as amended) provides that,

“Before seeking redress under this section the complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act”.

Thereafter, subsection 4 provides that,

“The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission…shall not investigate a case unless the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission…satisfied either that the respondent has replied to the notification or that at least one month has elapsed after it was sent to the respondent.”

In the present case, it is apparent that the Complainant issued the present complaint some ten days following the issue of the notification and in the absence of a response from the Respondent. In addition to the same, I note that the notification issued is silent as to any allegations of discrimination on the grounds of race or receipt of an assistance payment. Finally, it is further noted that the complaint form itself, while indicating that the Complainant wished to pursue discrimination complaints, is silent in relation to the substance of the same, instead referring to alleged deficiencies in the standard of repairs to the premises.

Having regard to the totality of the foregoing points, I find that the Complainant has not complied with the notification requirement stipulated by the Act.

I find that the Complainant has not complied with the notification requirements set out in Section 22 of the Act. In such circumstances, I find that the Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct.

Notification, ES1, Failure to Reply