Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

The Owner of an Apartment

The Management Company of an Apartment Development

Representatives

The Niece of the Complainant

Did not attend the hearing and was not represented

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00061047-001

16/01/2024

In January 2024, when the complainant’s niece submitted this complaint to the WRC, her aunt was 92 years old and living in an apartment in a development in County Dublin.  Although she had stopped driving, the complainant had a parking space in the apartment block where she lived and her niece parked there when she visited her aunt.  The complainant accessed her apartment using an electronic fob.  Her niece used a second fob to gain access to the car park. 

From the correspondence from the company representing the directors of the management company, I understand that, in May 2023, the access technology on the entrances to the apartments was changed to a “GSM” system and access is now gained by dialling a number at the entrance door or the car park gate using a mobile phone.  The manager informed me that the system was installed as a security measure and is common in many developments.  The complainant and her niece didn’t use mobile phones and the GSM method wasn’t feasible for them and they requested two replacement fobs.  After much opposition and delay, the complainant’s niece said that they were issued with just one fob.  The effect of this was that, for her niece to gain entrance to the car park, she had to phone her aunt from her landline before she left her own home, and her aunt had to go down to the car park and wait for her to arrive so that she could let her in.  This wasn’t safe for the older lady, whose mobility was compromised due to arthritis and poor eyesight.  Her niece said that her arrival time at the apartment was never certain and her aunt had to stand in the cold basement to wait for her. 

In the ES1 form that she sent to the management company on November 11th 2023, the complainant’s niece said that she was initially told that she could purchase an additional fob, and then she was informed that this was a “mis-communication.” 

The complainant was a frail elderly lady and her niece said that she suffers from ill health herself.  The complainant’s niece argues that, by refusing to issue them with a second fob, the management company has failed in its duty of care to them and has placed them under inordinate stress.  She said that she sees no reason why she and her aunt should be required to use mobile phones.  She claims that she was advised to park in the visitor’s car park, which, she said, is used by residents and is not properly managed.  Although she has a disability, there is no disabled person’s parking in the visitor’s car park.

The complainant’s niece made strenuous efforts, through her aunt’s doctor and solicitor, to procure a second fob for the car park at the apartment, but without success.  On October 6th 2023, she informed the management company that she intended making a complaint to the WRC under the Equal Status Act 2000.  Since this communication, she said that she felt further victimised in the way the management company placed “impossible obstacles and futile requests” in their way.

On behalf of her aunt, the complainant’s niece’s case is that the management company failed to provide her with reasonable accommodation so that she could visit her without inconvenience.  She claims that the failure to provide them with a second fob meant that they were discriminated against on the ground of age.

In his correspondence of February 13th 2025 on behalf of the management company, the manager said that that this complaint had come as a shock and he believed that the claim of discrimination could be rebutted, based on the following facts:

The complainant was the owner of the property and a member of the management company.  She had a zapper and, in 2025, she was the only resident in the development still in possession of a zapper, which was maintained specifically for her.  Her niece was offered the facility of being added to the GSM system which meant that she could phone the car park gate from anywhere any time she or anyone else needs to enter through the car park. 

Residents were required to give whatever numbers they wanted registered to the system to the management agency, who added them to the system and issued them with a phone number to ring to open the entrance door or the car park gate.  This is a freephone number and residents are not charged for phoning the gate.  There is also an application (“app”) that residents can download and use on their phones to access their apartments.  There are separate pedestrian entrances into the blocks that are accessible with the use of a code.

The Legal Framework

The preamble to the Equal Status Act 2000 states that its purpose is,

…to promote equality and prohibit types of discrimination, harassment and related behaviour in connection with the provision of services, property and other opportunities to which the public generally or a section of the public has access.

The link between discrimination and the failure to provide reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability is clearly set out at Section 4(1) of the Act:

(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination includes a refusal or failure by the provider of a service to do all that is reasonable to accommodate the needs of a person with a disability by providing special treatment or facilities, if without such special treatment or facilities it would be impossible or unduly difficult for the person to avail himself or herself of the service.

Subsection (6)(b) tells us that a “service provider” is,

(b) the person responsible for providing a service in respect of which section 5(1) applies.

Section 5(1) is the opening section of Part II of the Act, titled, “Discrimination and Related Activities.”  This section specifically addresses the disposal of goods and the provision of services: 

(1)  A person shall not discriminate in disposing of goods to the public generally or a section of the public or in providing a service, whether the disposal or provision is for consideration or otherwise and whether the service provided can be availed of only by a section of the public.

The issue for me to consider is if, as an elderly person with some disabilities, the complainant was entitled to be provided with reasonable accommodation by the provision of an additional electronic fob, for which she was willing to pay, so that her niece could access her home without inconvenience.

Consideration of the Facts

The complainant’s niece has set out the facts of this case from her perspective and that of her late aunt.  For the management company, the manager who wrote to the WRC submitted that it did everything reasonable to ensure that the complainant’s niece could access her apartment without inconvenience.  It is apparent that the nub of this complaint is the impact of the change from the use of electronic key fobs to the use of a GSM system which requires the home-owner to activate the entrance door and the car park gate using a mobile phone.  From the manager’s submission, I understand that, to facilitate the complainant, who didn’t use a car, the fob system was maintained on the door of her apartment block, but was removed from the gate to the car park.  I do not presume to understand the technical aspects of the entrance system, but it seems to me that the issue in dispute is not the failure of the management company to issue two fobs, but their decision not to maintain the old fob system on the gate to the car park.  When she visited the complainant, her niece was expected to adapt and to use a mobile phone to access the car park via the GSM system or, she was expected to park in the visitor’s car park.  The problem with this latter option is that she said that the spaces were frequently occupied by residents, and that there is no disabled person’s parking space in the visitor’s car park.   

Findings

The complainant’s niece is free not to use a mobile phone and it seems to me to be unreasonable and unfair that she and her aunt were so inconvenienced when the GSM system was introduced.  The change had a detrimental effect on them, one of whom was over 90 and the other over 70, both of whom were not in good health.  It is my view that, before the system went live, some consideration should have been given to how the change would impact on the two women.  A simple and non-technical option may have been the reservation of a space in the visitor’s car park or the marking out of a disabled parking space in the visitor’s car park.  I find that the failure to properly consult with them and to come to a resolution to facilitate their needs is a breach of s.5 of the Equal Status with regard to discriminatory treatment of a service-user by a service provider.

I decide that this complaint is well founded.  Having reached this conclusion, in accordance with s.27 of the Act, I may make an order for compensation for the effect of the discrimination, or I may order the respondent to take some other action.  As the complainant died in March 2025, it is my view that the most reasonable form of redress is a contribution to a registered charity involved in the care of older people.  I therefore order the respondent to make a donation of €1,000 to the charity, Alone. 

Discrimination on the age ground, technical changes, access to a car park in an apartment complex.