Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Abdullahi Salim Said

The Iveagh Trust

Representatives

Dublin City North West Citizens Information Service

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00062140-001

11/03/2024

The Complainant is the tenant of the Respondent approved housing body (“AHB”). He has been in receipt of rent supplement for a number of years.

 In September 2023 he received his review forms which are required to maintain the benefit. He asked for the Respondent to fill out their section.

At the time the Respondent was receiving regular guidance from the Department of Social Protection (“the Department”) that rent supplement would no longer be paid to tenants residing in AHBs and that they would need to move on to the RAS scheme which was administered by the local authorities.

The Respondent refused to fill out the Complainant’s form and referred him to the RAS scheme. The Complainant didn’t want to go onto the RAS scheme and preferred the rent supplement scheme. His rent supplement was stopped with the Department didn’t receive his rent form and he went into rent arrears. This arrears was entirely resolved when he applied for the RAS scheme. Though it required that some additional forms to be submitted.

The Complainant’s representative made written and oral submissions on his behalf.

The Complainant had always been in receipt of rent supplement. When he got his renewal form as usual he went to the Respondent to get the landlord section filled out.

He was initially told he would get the rent supplement review form back but given it back not filled in. He was then given the RAS forms. He was used to the rent supplement and didn’t want to change.

On the 22nd of September 2023 his rent supplement was suspended.

He was told by the Respondent that he had to go on RAS. However, it was not their role to administer or approve social protection schemes. That was for the Department. All they had to do was fill out the form.

While there is legislation to say that AHBs can receive RAS and rent supplement is being winded down, the benefit is still in existence. Despite the views of the Respondent there is nothing to say that they couldn’t accept or fill in a form. While the Department wrote to the Respondent they failed to specify any legislation that said AHBs could not revive rent supplement.

The Complainant felt depressed moving between rent supplement and RAS. He did go into rent arrears because he didn’t want to go onto RAS and the Respondent wouldn’t fill out the rent supplement forms. The new scheme was unfamiliar to him.

The arrears were eventually resolved with the assistance of the Respondent and citizen’s information.

The Complainant is seeking compensation for the distress and anxiety caused by the Respondent’s refusal to fill out the rent supplement review forms.

Peter Fitzpatrick, Director of Housing & Resident Services and Katie Madden Head of Housing made oral and written submissions on behalf of the Respondent.

The Respondent has no preference as to the type of housing assistance any tenant avails of. However, the matter was out of their control.

The Department of Social Protection made it clear to them, in writing, and on numerous occasions that their tenants should move to the RAS and no longer avail of rent supplement.

While the Respondent accepts that they are not the Department and ultimately don’t approve or disprove applications they are frequently put in the position of “go -between” the Department and the tenants.  They will only support an application for a payment if it is permissible. It was not in this case.

They asked to meet with the Complainant he refused to engage.  

This dispute arises because the Complainant preferred one form of housing assistance over another. It was accepted by both parties that there was no material difference between the schemes to the Complainant. Rent supplement was not more generous. It was just what he was used to.

The Complainant has outlined that he suffered stress from the situation. He went into arrears but this was resolved.

He suffered no material loss. He was at no point denied housing or facing eviction.

It is important to note the purpose of the legislation that this matter was referred to me under. That is to prevent tenants being discriminated against or refused housing for being in receipt of a housing assistance payment. The current dispute, where a Complainant sought to elect for a preferred housing assistance scheme over another when both were materially identical, appears to me to be totally unrelated to that goal.

Section 22.(1) of the Equal Status Acts states that the Workplace Relations Commission may dismiss a claim at any stage if of opinion that it has been made in bad faith or is frivolous, vexatious or misconceived or relates to a trivial matter.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that this matter is trivial.

In accordance with Section 22.(1) I dismiss the complaint as it relates to a trivial matter.