Complainant

Respondent

Parties

John Peters

Alison Murray

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00059035-001

26/09/2023

The Complainant was formerly a tenant of the Respondent’s.

In October 2022 the Complainant lost his job and began falling into rent arrears. The Complainant applied for the HAP scheme and referred the Respondent to the scheme in December 2022. The Respondent then issued the Complainant with a termination notice and gave him 4 months to find a new tenancy.

The Complainant attended the hearing. He gave evidence under oath. The Complainant made detailed written submissions ahead of the hearing.

The Respondent attended the hearing. She gave evidence under oath. The Respondent made detailed written submissions ahead of the hearing.

Scope of the Equal Status Act 2000 (“ESA”)

Section 5(1) of the ESA prohibits discrimination in the provision of services.

Section 6(1) of the ESA (as amended by the Equality Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2015, provides that:

A person shall not discriminate in:

(a)    Disposing of any estate or interest in premises

(b)    Terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises

(c)   Subject to 1(a) providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities

This case has raised an issue regarding “the Housing Assistance Ground” set out in Section 3(3)(b) of the ESA.

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) ”

Section 3 of this Act addresses the provisions of Prohibited Conduct.

 (1) 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,

The Complainant lost their job and in December 2022 sought to avail of the HAP scheme to cover the shortfall in the rent. The Respondent would not engage with the scheme. This is evidenced in text messages from that time and subsequently when the parties were discussing the rent arrears.  

The Complainant did not pay the rent between December 2022 and his eviction in May 2023. The Respondent has confirmed that she has not and will not pursue the Complainant for the rent arrears.

While I am satisfied the act of refusing to engage with the HAP scheme was discrimination on the basis of the housing ground, the Complainant has no monetary loss arising from that discrimination.

The issue of the Complainant’s eviction is more complicated. The Respondent provided oral evidence that there were pre-existing issues with the Complainant and that she had previously sought to agree a date on which he would exit the house.

On the basis of the oral evidence and the written evidence submitted by both parties it is clear that there were issues other than the HAP which greatly impacted on the termination of the Complainant’s tenancy and that the Respondent wanted the Complainant to leave the house before the HAP scheme was ever mentioned.

It does appear that the act of the Complainant submitting the HAP forms affected the timing of the formal eviction notice. The formal eviction notice was sent to the Complainant shortly after he submitted the HAP forms. However, having regard to the evidence available to me I do not think it was the reason for the eviction. The Respondent appears to have taken the HAP application as a sign that the Complainant was seeking to stay in the house after she had already told him that she wanted him to leave.  

I conclude that prohibited conduct occurred. Specifically, that the Respondent refused to consider the Complainant’s HAP application and then formalised her pre-existing plans to evict him after receiving the HAP request from the Complainant. 

Redress

Section 27 of the ESA provides that I can make an order for compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned. As outlined above the Complainant did not pay the rent that the HAP scheme would have covered, he simply went into arrears. As such that aspect of the discrimination did not result in any loss to him.

I am satisfied that the HAP forms triggered the formal notification of the Complainant’s eviction. However, at that point the Complainant was clearly going to be evicted either way. The only effect of this HAP discrimination may have been to move that date up slightly.

Having regard to all the circumstances and I am of the view that a sum of €600 is appropriate.

I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €600.