Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Victor Onukwili

Margaret Goulding

Representatives

Alex O’Conor, Threshold

 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-00053264-001

13/10/2022

In August 2022, Ms Goulding placed an advertisement in the Institute of Technology in Tallaght and in Tallaght Hospital for a studio apartment to rent.  The rent was €1,000 per month.  Mr Onukwili said that he saw the ad on Daft.ie and Ms Goulding agreed that she may have advertised also on that website.  At the hearing, Ms Goulding described the apartment as part of the ground floor of her house where her mother lived previously, and which was used by her adult children when they returned to Ireland on holidays.  She said that the apartment has its own entrance at the back, and a separate bathroom, kitchen and bedroom.  She said that the electricity and water is supplied from the main house. 

Ms Goulding agreed to rent the apartment to Mr Onukwili, and he moved in on August 27th 2022.  A copy of a licensee agreement was provided to me in advance of the hearing and this shows that the agreement was for six months from September 1st 2022 until February 28th 2023.  Mr Onukwili paid a deposit of €1,000 and he gave Ms Goulding €800 for the first month’s rent.  Ms Goulding said that Mr Onukwili told her that he was waiting for his deposit to be returned to him from his previous accommodation, so that he could pay the full rent of €1,000.

On September 1st, Mr Onukwili told Ms Goulding that the housing assistance payment (HAP) section of the council might contact her.  On hearing this, she said that she contacted her local Citizens Information Service and the HAP section of South Dublin County Council.  She said that she was informed that under certain circumstances, she could accept a HAP payment, but she decided that it wasn’t feasible.  On September 23rd 2022, Ms Goulding gave Mr Onukwili notice to vacate the apartment.  He stayed until October 31st, using his deposit as rent for his second month.

Mr Onukwili claims that he was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground when Ms Goulding refused to accept the HAP as part of his rent and evicted him from her property.

Opening his submission on behalf of Mr Onukwili, Mr O’Conor said that the studio apartment rented by Ms Goulding is a separate and self-contained part of her house and is therefore not covered by the exemption at section 6(2)(d) of the Equal Status Act 2000.  Mr O’Conor said that, on October 3rd, he filled in an ES1 form and gave it to Mr Onukwili to pass on to Ms Goulding for her to fill in the ES2.  On October 10th, Mr O’Conor said that he contacted Ms Goulding and told her that she was required to accept the HAP as part of the rent for her apartment.  When it became clear that she would not accept the HAP, Mr O’Conor said that, on October 13th 2022, he submitted this complaint to the WRC.

In his evidence, Mr Onukwili described the layout of the apartment, which corresponds with the description given by Ms Goulding.  He said that there is a connecting door into the hall of the main house, and if he needed to speak to Ms Goulding, he knocked on the door.  Otherwise, his apartment was completely self-contained and the only facilities he shared were electricity and water.

Although he signed a licensee agreement for six months, from September 2022 until February 2023, Mr Onukwili said that he understood that this was a “roll-over” agreement and that it would be extended as long as there were no issues with his tenancy.

Mr Onukwili said that when he was evicted by Ms Goulding, he spent nine months in homeless accommodation in Swords and he found a suitable place to rent in July this year. 

In her evidence, Ms Goulding said that the apartment is rented as part of the Revenue-approved room to rent scheme and that it is part of her house.  She said that, although there is a separate entrance at the back, there is also access from the hall of the main house.  She said that the apartment shares electricity, WIFI, water, bins and the garden with her house.

When Mr Onukwili came to look at the apartment in August 2022, Ms Goulding said that he didn’t mention the HAP and, if he had, she would have explained that the apartment wasn’t eligible.  When he was there for a few days, he said that someone would contact her from the HAP section of the council.  Ms Goulding said that she received forms from the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) and she filled them in.  She said that she was informed by the RTB that her apartment didn’t qualify for HAP.  She presented a copy of an email from the disputes section of the RTB dated February 7th 2023 which states, “This dispute has been closed now.”  No documents were provided to explain the background to this finding.

In her submission, Ms Goulding referred to the rules for accommodation that qualifies for the HAP.  These are:

1.       The landlord must inform the HAP section of the council how much the monthly rent is;

2.       They must supply their bank account details;

3.       They must provide an undertaking that the property complies with the standards for rental accommodation;

4.       They must provide an undertaking regarding tax compliance;

5.       They must provide proof that they own the property.

Explaining why she decided not to accept the HAP scheme for Mr Onukwili, Ms Goulding said that she could not provide proof that she owns the property because the house containing the studio apartment is owned by her husband.  She was also concerned that the apartment would not meet the standards of accommodation required by the HAP scheme.  Finally, Ms Goulding said that it is her understanding that the purpose of the HAP scheme is to provide long-term accommodation to people.  She said that the licensee agreement between her and Mr Onukwili was for six months.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Ms Goulding remarked on the fact that she had not sent a formal submission, although she provided documents that were useful for her case.  After the hearing, I wrote to her to give her an opportunity to send in a submission and, on September 1st, she wrote to the WRC saying that she didn’t feel that it was necessary to make a submission because she had explained her situation to me on the day 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 new “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 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.”)

Mr Onukwili’s case is that he was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground when Ms Goulding would not agree to accept the HAP as a portion of his rent.  On his behalf, Mr O’Conor referred to the clause at section 6(2)(d) of the Act, which provides that, “a separate and self-contained part” of a person’s home is not covered by the exemptions which operate to dis-apply section 6(1).  I note the findings of the Adjudicator of the Residential Tenancies Board in a similar case, reference number 0622-77571, which was submitted to me for consideration by Mr O’Conor.

Sections 6(1) and 6(2) provide that,

(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.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of -

(a) the disposal of any estate or interest in premises by will or gift,

(b) (deleted by the Equality Act 2004)

(c) any disposal of such an estate or interest, or any provision of accommodation or of any services or amenities relating to accommodation, which is not available to the public generally or a section of the public,

(d) the provision of accommodation by a person in a part (other than a separate and self-contained part) of the person’s home, or where the provision of the accommodation affects the person’s private or family life or that of any other person residing in the home, or

(e) the provision of accommodation to persons of one gender where embarrassment or infringement of privacy can reasonably be expected to result from the presence of a person of another gender.

Considering how the Act applied to Mr Onukwili’s complaint, the relevant part of these two sub-sections may be summarised as follows:

A person shall not discriminate in providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation.  This sub-section does not apply in respect of the provision of accommodation by a person in a part (other than a separate and self-contained part) of the person’s home, or where the provision of the accommodation affects the person’s private or family life or that of any other person residing in the home.

Findings

Based on Ms Goulding’s description of the studio apartment she advertised for rent in August 2022, it is my view that it fits within the definition of “a separate and self-contained part” of her house and is therefore not exempt from qualification for the HAP as provided for at section 6(2)(d) of the Equal Status Act.  I have reached this conclusion because the apartment was entirely for the use of Mr Onukwili and the provision of the accommodation to him did not affect the private life of Ms Goulding and her family.  None of the rooms which comprised a kitchen / living room, bedroom and bathroom were shared and, for Mr Onukwili to communicate with Ms Goulding, he was required to knock on an adjoining door.  I can make no comment about the eligibility of the apartment for tax relief under the rent a room scheme; however, it is my understanding that accommodation offered under the rent a room scheme may be rented to tenants in receipt of the HAP.

In addition to the status of the apartment within her house, Ms Goulding argued that she could not accept the HAP because her husband is the owner of the house.  In the absence of any communication from Ms Goulding regarding ownership, Mr Onukwili is entitled to assume that she has the status of a landlord and she must accept the legal responsibilities that apply to that role.

Finally, Ms Goulding submitted that that the licensee agreement was for a relatively short period of six months; however, this is not relevant to Mr Onukwili’s entitlement to avail of the HAP to rent the apartment.

Conclusion

I am satisfied that, based on the facts he has set out, Mr Onukwili has established that he was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground and Ms Goulding has not rebutted this allegation.

In accordance with Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, I am satisfied that Mr Onukwili 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 fixed any potential award at €15,000, which is the maximum that may be awarded by the District Court.  Considering all the facts, I make an order for compensation to Mr Onukwili of €3,000, equivalent to three months’ rent.

Discrimination, housing assistance ground, HAP