Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Magdalena  Urban

Maura Keegan

Representatives

Threshold

There was no appearance by, or on behalf of, the Respondent at the hearing

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00056530-001

05/05/2023

The Complainant is a single parent with one child.  The Complainant alleges that the Respondent refused to accept the housing assistance payment (HAP) payment in respect of a rental property.

The Complainant submits that she was discriminated against, within the meaning of section 3(1)(a) under the ground set out in section 3(3B) (the “housing assistance ground”) of the Equal Status Act 2000.

In response to an initial offer by the Respondent to the Complainant on 26 December 2022 to view a rented dwelling on Patrick Street, Trim, Co. Meath, a viewing was arranged and took place on 10 January 2023.  

The Complainant advised the Respondent that she would be in receipt of the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) and would therefore need to have the necessary forms completed in order for the HAP payments to be processed.

On 13 January 2023, the Respondent wrote to the Complainant to say:

“I have very bad news my company which owns the apartment does not want to go the. HAP route it hasn’t worked out well in the past with the council paying directly” (a copy of the text exchange was exhibited at the hearing).

The Complainant pleaded with the Respondent to let her rent the room as promised and reminded her that “everyone has to accept the Hap this is the rule in Ireland.”

The Respondent replied that she would “speak to the financial advisor but that it looks like the decision is made”. Later that same day, in response to continued pleading from the Complainant, the Respondent wrote “Magda like I told you I have no problem whatsoever but unfortunately I am only part owner of this apartment.”

On 16 January 2023, the Respondent texted the Complainant to say, “As I explained to you earlier I have a problem with gas so it’s unfortunately not for rent”.  The Respondent then blocked the Complainant on the Messenger app.

The Complainant could not avail of the offer of the rented dwelling and was unable to secure a tenancy.  She was forced to resort to emergency accommodation for herself and her child as a result of this discrimination. 

In addition, the Complainant experienced difficulty sourcing a school place for her child.  She had secured a place in a school near to the rental property but was unable to avail of it when she did not secure the lease. 

The effect of the refusal to allow HAP was that the Complainant was treated less favourably than she would otherwise have been, had she been prepared to pay the rent on the tenancy without any housing assistance.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing into this complaint.  I am satisfied that the Respondent was on notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing.

The Relevant Law

Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 prohibits discrimination on the ground of being in receipt of rent supplement.  This section is to be read in conjunction with Section 3 of the Act which defines “discrimination” in general and specifically defines the “housing assistance ground.” 

Section 3(1) provides that:

“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) provides that discrimination in relation providing accommodation is prohibited under all the existing protected grounds and inserts the 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.”)

The Complainant’s case is that she was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground when the Respondent would not agree to accept housing assistance payment (HAP) as a portion of her rent.

Findings

In the absence of the Respondent, I am reliant on the uncontested evidence of the Complainant when making a decision in this case.

It is clear from the exchange of messages between the parties, which was exhibited at the hearing, that the Respondent was initially willing to accept HAP payment as part of a tenancy agreement with the Complainant. However, she subsequently informed the Complainant that the company which owned the apartment was not willing to accept HAP. 

In response to further texts from the Complainant, the Respondent informed her that she could not rent out the apartment due to an issue with the gas.  I am not persuaded by that the Respondent’s excuse concerning the gas.  Regrettably, the Respondent did not to avail of the opportunity to attend the hearing and present any evidence on this matter.  My scepticism is bolstered by the action of the Respondent in blocking the Complainant on the Messenger app shortly afterwards.

Conclusion

I am satisfied, based on the uncontested facts she has set out, that the Complainant has established that she was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground when the Respondent refused to accept the HAP payment as part of a tenancy agreement.

In accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, based on her uncontested evidence, I am satisfied that the Complainant was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground contrary to sections 3 and 6 of the Act.  In respect of redress, section 27(2) of the Act has limited any potential award to €15,000, which is the maximum that may be awarded by the District Court.  Considering all the facts, and the impact of the discrimination on the Complainant and her child, I make an order for compensation to the Complainant of €12,000.

Discrimination, housing assistance ground, HAP