Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Yvonne Firth

AA Ireland Limited

Representatives

Not represented 

 Represented by a Manager

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00035882-001

21/04/2020

In her submission to the WRC, Ms Firth said that she is a single female aged over 40.  In 2017, through AA Ireland Limited, she purchased car insurance with Axa Insurance DAC.  Her policy was due for renewal on November 9th 2018.  On October 15th, she received an email from AA Ireland concerning the renewal.  She said that the quote she received was “ridiculously high” and she telephoned AA Ireland to make enquiries.  She claims that the agent she spoke to advised her that if she wanted a cheaper quote, she would need a partner or a husband or a second car.  When she asked if she was being penalised for being single, Ms Firth said that the agent replied “yes.”  Because she hadn’t got time to shop around, Ms Firth renewed her insurance later that day, adding her father to her policy.  In her submission to the WRC, Ms Firth said that another reason for renewing her policy was because she was afraid she would be penalised if she made a complaint.

Six months later, on May 1st 2019, Ms Firth sent a complaint by email to customersupport@theaa.com, which is a company in the United Kingdom.  In correspondence to the WRC on January 18th 2024, the director of regulatory affairs, risk and compliance in AA Ireland said that The AA in the UK did not forward the complaint of May 1st 2019 to AA Ireland.  One year after the offending telephone call, on October 21st 2019, Ms Firth sent an email to AA Ireland, following up on her complaint of May 1st.  On November 18th 2019, the head of risk and compliance in AA Ireland wrote to Ms Firth and informed her that her complaint had been investigated. 

In her letter, the head of risk informed Ms Firth that she listened to the recording of the telephone call of October 15th 2018 and it was apparent that the agent who spoke with her told her that if there were two people on the insurance policy, there would be less risk.  In a submission to the WRC on January 18th 2024, the director of regulatory affairs, risk and compliance said that, in the recorded telephone call of October 15th 2018, the agent can be heard telling Ms Firth that an additional driver can be anyone in her family, such as a parent, brother or sister.

In the correspondence of November 18th 2019, the head of risk accepted that the agent confirmed that Ms Firth was being penalised because she is single.  She told Ms Firth that the call was “not well handled and the issue at hand was not fully explained.”  She said that AA Ireland is an insurance intermediary firm and that it does not set the criteria or price for insurance policies and that this is done by the relevant insurer.  The head of risk informed Ms Firth that she should not have been told that she was being penalised for not having a partner or spouse to add to her policy and she said that the matter would be “addressed with corrective action as part of this investigation.”  The head of risk apologised to Ms Firth for what she described as “a very poor customer experience.”

On November 22nd 2019, Ms Firth lodged a complaint with the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman.  On April 15th 2020, she said that she was advised by an executive in the Ombudsman’s office that she could submit a complaint to the WRC, which she did on April 21st.

Explaining her reasons for the delay, in an email to the WRC on November 25th 2023, Ms Firth said that she believed that she was “doing right” by complaining to AA Ireland and then to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, who advised her to lodge this complaint with the WRC.

A person contemplating a complaint of discrimination under the Equal Status Act 2000 (“the Act”) is generally expected to comply with two separate time limits.  The first, at section 21(2) of the Act, provides that a complainant must, within two months after the date on which the prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, notify the respondent in writing and inform them of his or her intention to seek redress.  On May 1st 2019, Ms Firth attempted to send a complaint to AA Ireland six months after her telephone call on October 15th 2018, in which she claims that she was discriminated against.  Her email was sent to the wrong company.  Then, on October 21st 2019, more than a year after the alleged discriminatory treatment, she submitted a complaint to AA Ireland.

The second time limit is set out at section 21(6) of the Equal Status Act and this provides that a complaint of discrimination may not be referred to the WRC more than six months after the most recent incident of discrimination.  Ms Firth has also exceeded this time limit because she submitted this complaint to the WRC on April 21st 2020, one and a half years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

Section 21(3)(a) of the Act provides that, for reasonable cause, I may substitute the two-month time limit for four months.  I am also permitted, exceptionally, where I am “satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case to do so,” disapply the time limit entirely.

When I asked her why she waited for six months to send her first complaint to The AA in the UK, Ms Firth said that is very busy with a full-time job and two young children.  She said that her father had a stroke in January 2019, three months after the phone call of October 15th 2018.

Ms Firth claims that she was advised in April 2020 by an official in the office of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman that she could submit a complaint to the WRC.  It appears therefore, that, before April 2020, she was not aware of her right to make a complaint under the Equal Status Act.

Considering the timeline of events which are set out above, it is my view that Ms Firth’s decision to wait for more than six months to submit a complaint to AA Ireland is fatal to her claim for redress at this stage.  Having sent her complaint by email to the wrong respondent, she waited a further six months to follow up with the correct respondent.  Many people who submit complaints to the WRC are busy with children and jobs, but they manage to submit their complaints within the statutory time limit.  I can appreciate the stress caused to Ms Firth and her family when her father became ill in January 2019; however, by that stage, the two-month time limit set out at s.21(2) of the Act had already expired.

At the hearing, the director of regulatory affairs in AA Ireland, Mr Fleming, asked me to consider the implications for Ms Firth’s complaint of section 5(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000:

(1) A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (4A)[1], subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of-

(a) an activity referred to in section 7(2)[2],

(b) a service related to a matter provided for under section 6, or a service offered to its members by a club in respect of which section 8 applies[3],

(c) differences in the treatment of persons on the gender ground in relation to services of an aesthetic, cosmetic or similar nature, where the services require physical contact between the service provider and the recipient,

(d) differences in the treatment of persons in relation to annuities, pensions, insurance policies or any other matters related to the assessment of risk (other than on the gender ground or in any other circumstances to which the Gender Goods and Services Directive is relevant)] where the treatment -

(i) is effected by reference to-

(I) actuarial or statistical data obtained from a source on which it is reasonable to rely, or

(II) other relevant underwriting or commercial factors,

and

(ii) is reasonable having regard to the data or other relevant factors[.]

Having considered the implications of this section, it is apparent that s.5(1) of the Act, which makes it illegal to discriminate against a person when selling a product or providing a service, does not apply to the sale of insurance policies, as long as the treatment is based on underwriting data which is reasonably applied.  Mr Fleming explained that the data available to insurance underwriters shows that the risk of a car being in an accident is less for a car that has two people insured compared to one person.

I have reviewed the correspondence sent to Ms Firth by AA Ireland and I note that, in the letter of November 18th 2019, the head of risk apologised to her and thanked her for her feedback.  The head of risk also said that Ms Firth’s complaint had been used to identify the steps required to address her poor customer experience.  At the hearing, Ms Firth said that it would be useful to have an explanation of the reason why a car insured for two drivers is considered to be a lower risk than a car insured for one driver.  She also said that she was unaware that AA Ireland is an insurance broker and not an underwriter and she asked if the difference between AA Ireland’s role as a broker could be made clearer to customers.  On both these points, I find myself in agreement with Ms Firth; however, the problem remains that she submitted her complaint too late.

I have concluded that Ms Firth has not established that there was a reasonable cause for her failure to submit an ES1 form to AA Ireland within the two-month time limit specified at section 21(2)(a) of the Equal Status Acts 2000.  I have also concluded that there was no reasonable cause for her failure to submit a complaint to the WRC within the 12-month time limit which is specified at s.21(6)(b) of the Act.  I decide therefore, that her complaint is not well founded.

Time limit for submitting a complaint