ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00037206
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | James (Seamus) Burke | John Coyle |
Representatives | Complainant | Not represented |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 21 Equal Status Act, 2000 | CA-00048556-001 | 08/02/2022 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/09/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
The complainant, Mr. James Burke, rented a property from the respondent, Mr. John Coyle, from July 2017 until February 2022. In 2021, the complainant attempted unsuccessfully to get the respondent to sign Housing Assistance Payment forms. The complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under oath/affirmation. The respondent did not attend the hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant rented a property from the respondent from July 2017 until February 2022. The complainant became eligible for the Housing Assistance Payment in 2021. The complainant repeatedly asked the respondent to sign the relevant forms but without success. He sent the ES1 form to the respondent on 6th December 2021. The respondent responded on 6th January stating; ‘That he had told the complainant that he needed his house back since June and the complainant always came up with reasons why he was staying and; that he had told the complainant that he would sign the HAP form at the current market value which the complainant had told him he was not allowed to do and; that he was still willing to sign at the current market value which he was entitled to do’. The complainant left the accommodation in February 2022 having successfully obtained another house and accessing the Housing Assistance Payment scheme. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing, that the non-attendance has not been explained to my satisfaction. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Housing Assistance Payments Section 3(1) of the Equal Status Act, 2000 as amended 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(3B) of the Act provides: “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”).” Burden of Proof Section 38A of the 2000 Act, applies to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts which places the burden of proof on 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, The respondent did not attend the hearing and the complainant gave his evidence under oath. I note that the complainant made a number of efforts to get the respondent to sign and return the HAP forms and he did not do so. There was no evidence from the respondent of any genuine attempt to complete the HAP forms and allow the complainant avail of the Scheme. His only response was to the effect that he would do so if the complainant agreed to pay increased rent which is not a legitimate reason to refuse to sign the forms. Having concluded my investigation of this complaint, I find pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Acts, that the Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on the housing assistance ground. The respondent did not rebut this evidence. Consequently, I find the Respondent engaged in prohibited conduct. 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 €5,000.00 which I consider to be appropriate in the circumstances. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
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.
The respondent engaged in prohibited conduct on the housing assistance ground, and I order him to pay the complainant redress in the amount of €5,000.00 which I consider to be appropriate in the circumstances. |
Dated: 29/03/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Shay Henry
Key Words:
Equal Status, Housing Assistance Payment. Refusal to sign forms. Non-attendance at hearing |