Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ashley  Fanton

Philomena Ceci Droney-Breslin

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Representatives

  Alex O’Conor of Threshold

Robert Coonan of Robert Coonan Solicitors

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00059841-001

06/11/2023

The complainant says the respondent refused to accept HAP payments. The respondent says that a Notice of Termination had been served to the complainant at the time of the alleged discrimination.

The complainant submits she became entitled to receive the HAP payment when her working hours were reduced, and her income was reduced. She sent a HAP Form to the landlord on 12 August 2023 but he did not respond.

She confirmed she left the property at the beginning of January 2024.

The complainant submits the Equal Status Act places a legal obligation on a landlord to sign HAP forms.

The respondent submits that a Notice of Termination dated 2 February 2023 was served with respect to the property. A further Notice of Termination was served dated 5 July 2023. The complainant and her co-tenant failed, refused or neglected to yield up the possession of the property. In these circumstances the complainant was overholding the property and the respondent did not accept that the complainant was lawfully entitled to be in occupation of the property.

The respondent further submits that there was no discussion between him and the complainant in relation to HAP payments before engaging in the lease. Thus, the use of HAP is not a contractual right which the complainant is entitled to contractually exercise.

The tenancy relevant to this complaint was from December 2022 in the sole name of a co-tenant. The complainant was subsequently put on the tenancy agreement. A second Termination Notice was served in July 2023, after the complainant had been added to the tenancy agreement. This became the subject of a dispute with the Residential Tenancies Board. As far as the Landlord was concerned the complainant was outside of the tenancy agreement when she asked him to sign the HAP forms.

The complainant contends the respondent was always required to sign the forms and cited ADJ-00028859 in support of this, where it was decided the landlord should have signed the HAP forms, even if there is a notice to terminate. The respondent countered that the decision confirmed the notice of termination was served after the landlord had received the HAP forms.

I agree with the respondent’s view of ADJ-00028859. In the complaint before me the second Termination Notice was served in July 2023, after the complainant had been added to the tenancy agreement. The complainant sent the HAP forms to the landlord on 12 August 2023. In this timeline there is no inference, as there was with ADJ-00028859, as to the motives for serving the Termination Notice.

I conclude that it is unrealistic to expect a landlord to sign HAP forms after a legitimate Termination Notice has been served. If the landlord did sign the forms it could well be interpreted that the signing of the HAP forms gives the tenant(s) a right to stay in the property. It is up to the PRB to decide on disputes involving Termination Notices. I can only accept that, in this complaint, a Termination Notice had been served and at the time the HAP forms were sent the respondent considered the tenants were “overholding” the property. I therefore find that no discrimination took place.  

For the reasons given above I find that the complainant was not discriminated against in relation to Housing Assistance.

Housing Assistance – no discrimination