Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Rashidat  Yusuff

Armstrong and Margaret Birhiray

Representatives

Carolina Vial, 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-00055763-001

27/03/2023

The Complainant alleges discrimination on the housing assistance ground, as the Respondent allegedly refused to complete the Rent Supplement Review Form, despite her repeated requests. The Complainant provided her ES1 Form to the Respondent on 30 January 2023 and received no reply. The Complainant submitted her complaint to the WRC on 27 March 2023.

The Complainant made detailed written and oral submissions.

The Complainant submitted that she moved into the rental property in August 2016. She outlined that it was a three-bedroomed house and that she lived there with her five children. She outlined that she intended to live there long-term and that she would never have accepted a tenancy of only one year. She submitted that, at first, she paid €1,500 per month in rent. In 2021, this increased by 4% to €1,637.50. The Complainant submitted that she was in receipt of Rent Supplement from the start of the tenancy. She submitted that the previous Rent Supplement Review Forms had been completed by the Respondent.

The Complainant submitted that there have been long-standing issues with the property and a fractious relationship with the Respondent. The Complainant outlined that as a result, she had approached “Threshold” for assistance. She submitted that the property was in a state of disrepair before and after she moved in. For example, the Complainant outlined that the heating system has not worked since November 2022. She further submitted that until Threshold became involved in her case, she had to cover the repair expenses herself. She submitted that the Respondent regularly came to the property unannounced, to harass and bully her. She said that the Respondent Landlady came to the property once if not twice a week, every week. The Complainant submitted that nearly every time the Respondent Landlady called to the property, she told the Complainant that she was not paying enough rent and that she would be evicted onto the street with her children. The Complainant outlined that on one occasion in early January 2023, the Respondent accompanied by four other people, came to the property unannounced. The Complainant submitted that she felt bullied and overwhelmed.

 RTB Proceedings:

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent served her with two Notices of Termination, dated 10 June 2021 and 21 September 2021. These were challenged by the Complainant with the assistance of Threshold, before the RTB. In February 2022, the RTB deemed these two Notices of Termination invalid and awarded the Complainant damages due to the Respondent’s interference with her “right to peaceful and exclusive occupation”. This finding was unsuccessfully appealed by the Respondent, as set out in the RTB Determination Order dated 17 August 2022. The Complainant submitted that this RTB award is now the subject of enforcement proceedings against the Respondent. The Complainant confirmed that the Respondent served another Notice of Termination on her in February 2022.

Rent Supplement Review Form:

The Complainant submitted that she asked the Respondent Landlady to sign the Rent Supplement Review Form during a telephone conversation on 3 December 2022. This request was refused. The Complainant then sent text messages on 4 and 5 December 2022 to the Respondent Landlady, again requesting that the Rent Supplement Review Form be signed. The Respondent Landlady told the Complainant to contact the Respondent Landlord. The Complainant then sent text messages to the Respondent Landlord on 5 and 9 December 2022, explaining that her Rent Supplement would be stopped, if the Rent Supplement Review Form was not completed and submitted. The Complainant submitted that she received no reply and that she received no calls from the Respondent. These text messages were submitted by way of evidence.

The Complainant submitted that she was worried that her Rent Supplement would be stopped and that if she could not pay her rent, she would be evicted. She received a letter from the Rent Supplement Section of the Department of Social Protection dated 18 January 2023, who advised her to contact Threshold. The Complainant submitted that she had already been in contact with Threshold regarding other tenancy issues, outlined above. The Complainant submitted that due to Threshold’s intervention and the goodwill of the Rent Supplement Section, she continued to receive Rent Supplement, despite the Respondent’s refusal to complete the Rent Supplement Review Form. This continued until the rental property was transferred to a Receiver in May 2023, who completed the Rent Supplement Review Form. The Complainant submitted that from December 2022 until May 2023, she was in an insecure position until the Rent Supplement Review Form was properly completed.

Effect:

In her written and oral submissions, the Complainant submitted that she was discriminated against by the Respondent as it refused to complete her Rent Supplement Review Form. She outlined that she felt bullied. She submitted that she and her family suffered great stress and that her mental health suffered as a result. She submitted that she had to defer her college exams in January 2023, due to the stress she suffered at that time. She is seeking compensation for what she has endured.

Ms. Vial – Evidence:

Ms. Vial outlined that the Complainant provided her with the letter from the Rent Supplement Unit dated 18 January 2023 which informed the Complainant to contact Threshold. Ms. Vial outlined that Threshold contacted the Rent Supplement Unit, explaining that the Complainant had ongoing RTB proceedings against the Respondent which were now at the enforcement stage. The Rent Supplement Unit indicated that it would wait for the completed Rent Supplement Review Form and that in the meantime, it would continue to pay the Rent Supplement.

Ms. Vial provided details of the ongoing RTB proceedings. She stated that the Respondent’s behaviour was well-documented by the RTB.

Ms. Vial outlined that it was fortunate that Threshold has a good relationship with the Rent Supplement Unit. She further outlined that if the Complainant had not continued to receive Rent Supplement, she would not have met the rental payments and she could have been evicted. Ms. Vial outlined that while the Complainant has not suffered financial loss, she has suffered psychological stress. She outlined that it is very difficult to live with the threat of eviction.

Under cross-examination, Ms. Vial confirmed that the Complainant had told her that the Respondent Landlady regularly told the Complainant that she would be “kick[ed] out on the street”.

The Respondent made detailed oral and written submissions.

The Respondent Landlord submitted that when the Complainant originally move into the property in 2016, she was meant to stay for only one year. He submitted that he had received the Rent Supplement Review Form but he would not sign it as he had served a Notice of Termination on the Complainant in February 2022 which took effect in September 2022. He submitted that this specific Notice of Termination had not been challenged by the Complainant. He submitted that he had not taken steps to enforce this Notice of Termination.

The Respondent Landlord submitted that he has been in serious financial difficulty. He said that that this was the Respondent’s only rental property. He said that the Respondent owns its own house and rented out this property. The Respondent Landlord outlined that the mortgage repayment on the rental property was €2,500 per month but the rent was only €1,600 per month. He said that the property requires a lot of repairs. He outlined that “a lot of things are being destroyed in the house”. He alleged that the Complainant damaged the fence to the property. He outlined that he has other expenses – he has three children in university abroad, all studying medicine. He submitted that a Receiver has now taken over the rental property and that this has caused him suffering. He submitted that he wanted this noted.

The Respondent Landlord submitted that the Complainant could seek government housing. He said that the government would support her.

The Respondent Landlord submitted that if the Complainant had “extended a hand of friendship”, they could have come to some arrangement, despite the Notice of Termination being in place. The Respondent Landlord was referred to the text messages that the Complainant had sent in December 2022 in which she explained that her Rent Supplement would be stopped if the Respondent did not complete the Rent Supplement Review Form. The Respondent Landlord confirmed that these messages had been received.

Under cross-examination, the Respondent Landlord was asked about his work on a “granny flat” in the garden of the rental property. The Respondent Landlord outlined that this was in an area demarcated from the rental property.

The Respondent Landlord was asked why he did not respond to the Complainant’s text messages. He said that he didn’t respond as there was a valid Notice of Termination in place. He also stated that the Complainant does not answer his calls.  The Respondent Landlord did not accept that he was acting in retaliation by refusing to complete the Rent Supplement Review Form. The Respondent Landlord submitted that he could have moved into the rental property and repaired it while renting out the Respondent’s own house. The Respondent Landlord also submitted that he was considering selling the rental property in January 2023.

The Respondent Landlord accepted that he and the Respondent Landlady had called to the house unannounced, but submitted that they had always “knocked”. When it was put to the Respondent Landlord that the Respondent Landlady brought up the issue of a rent increase nearly every time she called, he stated that if she had done so, she was only giving “sisterly advice”. He did not accept that the Respondent Landlady called to the house on a weekly basis. He submitted that the Complainant could not prove how many times the Respondent Landlady called to the property.

It must be determined whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on the “housing assistance ground” contrary to the Equal Status Act 2000 – 2018, as amended, (the “ESA”) by failing to complete the Rent Supplement Review Form, despite the Complainant’s repeated requests.

The Law:

Section 3(3B) of the ESA, as amended, 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”).”

Furthermore, section 6 provides:

“6.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in—

(a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises,

(b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or

(c) subject to subsection (1A), providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities.

(1A) Subsection (1)(c) is without prejudice to —

(a) any enactment or rule of law regulating the provision of accommodation, or

(b) the right of a person providing accommodation to make it a condition of the provision of that accommodation that rent supplement is paid directly to that person.”

Section 38A of the ESA requires the Complainant to establish facts from which the alleged discrimination may be inferred. It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.  Therefore, the Complainant must show that she has been treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on the housing assistance ground which requires that, as between any two persons, one is in receipt of housing assistance and the other is not. I accept that the relevant comparator in this case is a tenant of the Respondent who is not in receipt of Rent Supplement.

Finally, as regards redress, section 27(1) of the ESA provides:

“Subject to this section, the types of redress for which a decision of the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 25 may provide are either or both of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances:

(a) an order for compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned; or

(b) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is so specified.”

Findings:

The Complainant was credible in her evidence. She detailed her efforts in contacting and asking the Respondent to complete the Rent Supplement Review Form in early December 2022. She made it clear to the Respondent that she would not receive Rent Supplement if it did not complete those forms. The Respondent did not engage in any meaningful way. The Complainant contacted Threshold for assistance, who corroborated her evidence. I find that the Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on the housing assistance ground.

It is clear from the evidence that the Respondent has tried to use whatever means possible to evict the Complainant from the property. When the first two Notices of Termination were deemed invalid by the RTB in February 2022, it served another Notice of Termination that same month. The Respondent argued that this latest Notice of Termination enabled it to refuse to complete the Complainant’s Rent Supplement Review Form. However, by refusing to complete the Complainant’s Rent Supplement Review Form, the Respondent acted discriminatorily and in breach of the ESA. In doing so, the Respondent sought to cut off the Complainant’s Rent Supplement, placing her at risk of eviction. The Respondent Landlord indicated that he would have tried to come to an arrangement with the Complainant if she had “extended the hand of friendship”. However, he seemed to have overlooked the fact that he had ignored the Complainant’s text messages. Finally, the Respondent Landlord and Respondent Landlady also appeared to engage in diversionary tactics – referring the Complainant to each other and attempting to obfuscate responsibility. On the evidence, the Respondent failed to rebut the inference of discrimination on the housing assistance ground.

Conclusion:

Having concluded my investigation of this complaint, I find that pursuant to section 25(4) of the ESA, the Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on the housing assistance ground. The Respondent did not rebut this case.

In respect of redress, section 27(2) of the ESA has fixed any potential award at €15,000, which is the maximum that may be awarded by the District Court. The Complainant did not suffer any financial loss, thanks to the efforts of Threshold and the Rent Supplement Unit. However, she suffered great stress from December 2022 until May 2023, when the Respondent refused to complete the Rent Supplement Review Form. Considering all of the facts, including the effects of the discrimination on the Complainant, I make an order for compensation of €1,500.

The Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination on the housing assistance ground which the Respondent has failed to rebut. The complaint is therefore well founded.

In the circumstances, I make an order for compensation of €1,500.

Equal Status Act, Housing Assistance Ground.