Complainant

Respondent

Parties

David  Crosby

South Dublin County Council

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

 Tom Mallon B.L. instructed by SDCC Law Department

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00057292-001

22/06/2023

The complainant says he was discriminated against on the grounds of family status, and Housing Assistance in relation to the provision of accommodation by the respondent, who also failed in the provision of reasonable accommodation for a disability regarding accommodation.

The complainant submits the respondent discriminated against him in a series of administrative and procedural failures in handling his application to give his son medical priority and his application for 35% Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) discretionary top-up.

The application for medical priority was initially refused, with no reasons given. Also, the application for the HAP top-up was also refused with no reasons given. He experienced significant delays in dealing with his complaint to the respondent. He also claims the inquiry was inadequate and the respondent omitted a multidisciplinary report from the documents sent to the medical referee.

The complainant confirms he has subsequently been granted medical priority and the Housing Assistance top-up but he submits the initial handling of his application amounts to discrimination under the Equal Status Acts.

The respondent submits that these complaints are unstatable as the service which is the subject have been provided. The complainant has obtained appropriate medical priority and was granted the discretionary increase in HAP payments. The complaints of delay or failure to advise him of his right to appeal and related matters are “judicial review” in nature and do not fall to be considered under the Equal Status Acts.

In November 2022 the complainant submitted an application for Medical Priority in relation to housing to the respondent. He received a decision in March 2023 which he appealed. The respondent subsequently confirmed the multi-disciplinary report had not been attached to the first application and that it was now being sent to the Medical Referee. The medical priority was approved on 8 May 2023.

The complainant applied for the HAP discretionary top-up on 13 February 2023. This was refused the following day. Following an appeal it was awarded on 25 May 2023.

This complaint was submitted to the WRC on 22 June 2023. This is after both the medical priority and HAP top-up have been granted. The complaints are about how the applications were dealt.

For the complaint in relation to the grounds of family status and disability to succeed the complainant must show he received less favourable treatment than another person who does not have a family status or has a different family status and another person who does not have a disability or has a different disability. The evidence provided by the complainant shows what he considers unfair treatment by the respondent which he claims adversely affected him and his family. What he has failed to show is how any of the treatment was discriminatory on the cited grounds.

In relation to the complaint under the Housing Assistance ground it is my conclusion that he was treated in the same way as anyone else making an application would have any been. In these circumstances he has failed to show any discrimination took place.

The complainant also submitted a good deal of documents relating to incidents subsequent to the referral of this complaint to the WRC. I cannot consider these documents as they do not fall within the time parameters of this complaint.

For the reasons given above I find that the complainant was not discriminated against by the respondent under the Equal Status Acts.

No discrimination