Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gabor  Szocs

Fingal County Council Housing Department

Representatives

Mr Chris Hughes BL and Ms Gemma Hayes BL instructed by Fingal County Council Law Agent and attended by Mr William Murray

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00061482-001

09/02/2024

The Complainant is a worker residing in north county Dublin. He has been on the waiting list for social housing for over 13 years.

A hearing was scheduled for the 4th of September 2024. I opened the hearing with questions as to the scope of the complaint and whether it fell under the Equal Status Act.

The Complainant attended the hearing and clarified the basis for his complaint.

He believes he has been discriminated against because he does not fall under one of the additional grounds by which tenants on the social housing list are given priority. He is not in receipt of a termination notice from his current accommodation, there is no welfare issue or medical issue associated with his case.

As such he has been left on the housing list indefinitely. He lives in extremely unsuitable shared rental accommodation.

The Respondent submits that the grounds outlined by the Complainant do not fall within the scope of the Equal Status Acts and are provided for in the Housing Acts as a basis by which a housing authority is required to prioritise those on the waiting list.

Section 3 subsection 2 of the Equal Status Acts defines discrimination for the purposes of the act.

(2) As between any two persons, the discriminatory grounds (and the descriptions of those grounds for the purposes of this Act) are:

(a) that one is male and the other is female (the “gender ground”),

(b) that they are of different civil status (“civil status] ground”),

(c) that one has family status and the other does not or that one has a different family status from the other (the “family status ground”),

(d) that they are of different sexual orientation (the “sexual orientation ground”),

(e) that one has a different religious belief from the other, or that one has a religious belief and the other has not (the “religion ground”),

(f) subject to subsection (3), that they are of different ages (the “age ground”),

(g) that one is a person with a disability and the other either is not or is a person with a different disability (the “disability ground”),

(h) that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”),

(i) that one is a member of the Traveller community and the other is not (the “Traveller community ground”),

(j) that one—

(i) has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for in Part II or III,

(ii) has attended as a witness before the Authority, the F12[adjudication officer] or a court in connection with any inquiry or proceedings under this Act,

(iii) has given evidence in any criminal proceedings under this Act,

(iv) has opposed by lawful means an act which is unlawful under this Act, or

(v) has given notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv),

and the other has not (the “victimisation ground”).

(3) (a) Treating a person who has not attained the age of 18 years less favourably or more favourably than another, whatever that person’s age shall not be regarded as discrimination on the age ground.

(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply in relation to the provision of motor vehicle insurance to licensed drivers under that age.

(3A) In any proceedings statistics are admissible for the purpose of determining whether discrimination has occurred by virtue of subsection (1)(c).]

(3B) 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”).]

The Complainant has identified none of the above grounds as the basis for alleged discrimination.

He is being treated differently to some other tenants waiting on the housing list because he does not come within any of the grounds for prioritisation.

These grounds for prioritisation are not prohibited as discrimination under the Equal Status Act. The Respondent is required by the Hosing Act 2009 to have an allocation scheme and not to treat all those on the waiting list identically.  Section 6 of this act also explicitly grants the Respondent protections in prioritising certain tenants.

Having regard to the scope of the Complainant’s complaint and the Equal Status Act, I am satisfied that the complaint must fail.

I find that the complaint is not well founded.