Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Artur  Muizininks

Claire O'Meara

Representatives

John Keenan JRK Services

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00061746-001

20/02/2024

The complainant was a tenant of the respondent in Co. Kildare since May 2017 and  says that he was approved for Housing Assistance Payment (‘HAP’) by Dublin City Council (DCC)  in November 2022. He  completed the HAP documentation and sent the relevant part to the respondent, Claire O’Meara, to be completed by her. In December 2022, he spoke to her and she verbally refused to complete the HAP documentation.

In January 2023, the complainant received a letter from DCC following up his HAP application. On January 24th 2023, he wrote to the respondent noting that he had received this letter and asking why she had not completed the HAP documentation.

On January 26th the respondent  asked for a copy of the letter from DCC but he replied that it was confidential and asked again for her to explain why she would not complete it. No response was received.

On  March 1st,  2023, he wrote to the respondent again noting that she appeared to have ignored his request to complete the HAP documentation or provide a reason for not doing so. She replied indicating that she would not provide him with a letter setting out her reasons but that she had let him know in December 2022 that she would not be leasing to him again on expiry of the lease in May 2023.

In May 2023, on expiry of his lease he was served with notice to quit and given until the end of November 2023 to vacate the property. During this time, he continued to pay his rent in full, despite his struggle to afford same as a result of the landlord’s ongoing refusal to complete his HAP application.

On August 15th, 2023, he wrote to the respondent  to ask her to complete the relevant HAP documentation or,  alternatively, to provide him with a refusal and reasons for same in writing.

On August 22nd he received a letter from his landlord which once again requested the letter he received from DCC but did not address her failure to complete his HAP application. He has been eligible to receive HAP since November 2022. During this time, he continued to pay his rent in full despite the financial hardship this caused.

He believes that the respondent’s refusal to complete the necessary forms to enable him to receive HAP constitutes discrimination on the housing assistance ground under the Equal Status Acts.

The issue referred for adjudication is the alleged discriminatory refusal of the respondent to agree to accept payment of rent under the State’s Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) scheme, in contravention of Section 13 (b) of  the Equality (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2015 which inserted the following provision into Section 3 of the Equal Status Act 2000:

“(3B) For the purpose 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 cites the occasion of discrimination as “4th December 2022”. The complaint was submitted to the WRC on February 20th, 2024; fourteen months later. Accordingly, apart from any other consideration, it is submitted that the complaint of February 20th, 2024 is out of time, per Section 21(6) of the Equal Status Act, which requires that

 “a prohibited conduct may not be referred under this section after the end of 6 months from the date of the occurrence of the prohibited conduct to which the case relates or, as the case may be, the date of its most recent occurrence.”

unless exceptional circumstances preventing referral, arise or have arisen, in which case the six months ‘window’ for referral may be extended, on application, for a further 6 months i.e. up to a maximum period of 12 months after the alleged occurrence of discrimination.

In this case the serving of notice per Form ES1 is recorded as having occurred on or about October 20th, 2023, approximately eleven months after the alleged act of discrimination. Accordingly, the complainant did not comply with the notice prescribed in the 2000 Act.

Section 22 of the Equal Status Act provides for the dismissal of a complaint that is determined to be frivolous, in bad faith or vexatious.  In the instant case there is strong evidence that the complaint was motivated by disharmony and conflict that emerged between the parties in or about the final 3 years of the tenancy in question.

Detail was provided on the breakdown in relations between the parties, including significant property damage, the exclusion of the respondent from the property when the complainant changed  door-locks, and  the withholding of the final 3 months’ rent, calculated at €3,450.00  along with the failure of the complainant to pay utility bills, estimated at €731.97,

In addition, the complainant referred a similar complaint to the Residential Tenancies Board and was involved in a mediation process on August 4th, 2023. In essence it was stated that the respondent had issued the complainant notice to quit because of his application for HAP support, which he alleged was approved by Dublin City Council in November 2022.

The mediation process concluded on the basis that the Mediator determined that the tenancy agreement that obtained between the parties was being terminated in accordance with law. The complainant was advised by the RTB that he could pursue his complaint further to an RTB Tribunal Hearing, but evidently chose not to, as the matter has not been raised with the respondent since then.

It is submitted that, central to the  complaint is the allegation that when he informed the respondent of his approval for HAP support payments from Dublin City Council, the respondent decided to terminate his tenancy.

However, he does not complain that that an alternative tenancy was favoured by the respondent over the Complainant, on the basis that such a tenancy did not rely on HAP support i.e. he does not cite a particular tenant given more favourable treatment than he.

In fact, the occupant of the property in question is one of the respondent’s sons, who is not in any tenancy or rental agreement. Accordingly, it is submitted that the requirement for the complainant to demonstrate that he has received less favourable treatment than another or others per Section 3 of the Equal Status Act has not been fulfilled, and that this also constitutes grounds on which the instant complaint should be decided to be without foundation.

Central to the complaint is the allegation that the respondent reacted adversely to his communication to her that he had been approved for HAP support by Dublin City Council in November 2022. The adverse reaction is alleged to have been her refusal to agree to acceptance of the HAP payment. This refusal was said to have occurred on December 4th 2022.

The complainant has further alleged that the respondent decided to end the tenancy because of the HAP approval.

The fact is that the respondent had indicated to the complainant that she would not be renewing the tenancy long before the issue of a HAP payment arose. This was verbally communicated in or about October 2022. This communication was against the backdrop of the severe deterioration in relationships referred to earlier.

The lease included a provision that the complainant would be released from the tenancy agreement with minimum notice, should he find alternative accommodation prior to the termination of tenancy agreement that then subsisted between the parties.

In the event, the agreement in question was not adhered to.

In response to the Complainant’s communication of DCC’s alleged approval for HAP support, the respondent was sceptical and requested a copy of the Council’s approval and/or details of the appropriate party to whom she could properly respond.

The complainant refused to provide the respondent with the alleged HAP approval, declaring that the correspondence from Dublin City Council was “private and confidential”. To this date, despite a number of requests, neither the alleged letter of approval or details of the Dublin City Council  party to whom the respondent could correspond has been provided or identified.

The fact is that HAP payments are not pre-approved. It is an essential requirement for the processing of a HAP support application that the landlord concerned completes a prescribed part of the application form prior to any assessment or approval. Accordingly, it is submitted that that the actuality of HAP approval, which is central to the Complainant’s complaint, has not and cannot be evidentially established.

The complaint is not well founded and cannot be sustained as. the prescribed timelines have not been complied with, the complaint is vexatious in nature and a similar complaint was coursed unsuccessfully before the RTB.

(As the complainant had not received the respondent’s very late submission, the hearing was adjourned briefly to enable him to consider it following which it proceeded.)

The complaint was submitted to the WRC on February 20th, 2024, thereby bringing potential breaches of the Act occurring since August 21st, 2023, within jurisdiction immediately, or should a good case be made for extending it by another six months to February 21st, 2023.

The complaint form referred to the first alleged breach as having occurred on December 4th, 2022, on which date the complainant says he had a conversation with the complainant in which he alleges she refused to fill out the HAP documentation.  This is well outside any, even extended cognisable period. While the ‘notice to quit’ was referred to this was not relied on at the hearing as a breach.

The only event that the complainant could rely on was an exchange of correspondence between himself and the respondent between August 15th (from him) and a reply he received from the respondent on August 22nd, 2023.

The second of these falls within the cognisable period, but it does not disclose any breach of the Act.

That correspondence from the complainant was to advise the respondent that he has been approved for HAP (although the assertion that he had been approved is disputed by the respondent) and the respondent in her reply on August 22nd merely asks the complainant for further information on his HAP application and contact details for the person in DCC dealing with the matter.

(In an earlier written submission to the WRC on March 26th, the respondent stated that she had never, either verbally or in writing, stated that she would not accept HAP payments. However, given the issue relating to timelines, this was not an issue).

There is nothing here resembling a possible breach of the Act. There was no evidence submitted by the complainant of a breach of the Act in this correspondence.

Indeed, there was none discernible anywhere on these facts either within or outside the cognisable period. The complainant could offer no satisfactory explanation for his failure to make an earlier application other than that he was acting on advice.

The question of the mediation agreement reached at the RTB raises interesting issues as to whether the parties to it are bound by its terms. However, that does not arise on the facts in this case.

While the respondent has raised the time limits as the preliminary issue this inevitably led to an assessment as to when, or indeed whether any alleged breaches of the Act occurred within either the immediate or any extended period that might be cognisable for the purposes of the Act.

I find that there are none and that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of any breach within the statutory time limits.

For the reasons set out above complaint CA-00061746-001 is not well-founded.

Time Limits, Equal Status Acts