Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Safinatu  Kamara

John O'Connor

Representatives

Self-represented

 No Attendance

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00065572-001

22/08/2024

The complainant, Ms Kamara, entered into a rental agreement with the respondent landlord in January 2024. She applied for a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) by forwarding the appropriate forms to the local authority. The local authority sought appropriate information from the respondent which was not forthcoming. The complainant and her foster mother made unsuccessful attempts to get the necessary forms signed. The complainant took advice from a housing support agency and under the circumstances was advised not to pay the rent. The respondent became abusive towards the complainant and cut-off the electricity. The complainant had to leave the rented property in August 2024. She made a complaint to the WRC under the Equal Status Act on 22nd August 2024.  

Summary of Ms Kamara’s Evidence

On 15th January 2024, the complainant said she went for a viewing and agreed to rent a property in Kildare, from the respondent. She asked about HAP and he said he would accept HAP. She called her foster mother so she could also speak to the respondent and it was confirmed to her also that HAP would be accepted. She paid a deposit of 1-months’ rent to the respondent to secure the property. She got assistance from her College who paid the respondent 2-months’ rent of €3,800. She put into evidence correspondence from the College Access Officer of the payment made to the respondent.

On 16th January 2024, she gave the respondent the HAP form and he held onto it for a month. She called him so he would follow up with the HAP form. The forms were submitted to the local authority. An issue arose with the proof of ownership of the property and further information was sought from the respondent by the local authority. The complainant put into evidence correspondence from the local authority on their attempts to confirm proof of ownership with the respondent.

As she was also having difficulty with house repairs, she reported these matters to the Residential Tenancies Board and she was informed that the respondent was not registered. Given the difficulty with the HAP forms and the repairs, she contacted a housing support agency who advised that she stop paying rent until matters were resolved.

She said that she continuously tried to contact the respondent to get the HAP issue resolved. She then became aware that the respondent had moved the main fuse and stopped the electricity to the property. As the respondent was making threats to pressure her to leave the property, she contacted the Gardai.

She remained in the property for two months without electricity and then got a notice letter to leave the property.  

She put into evidence the ES1 Form that she sent to the respondent’s address. The respondent did not reply to the ES1 Form.

In August 2024, an incident arose when she sought time to remove her possessions. She reported this to the Gardai for investigation.

The HAP payment was never processed, and she moved out of the property on 28th August 2024.

Summary of Ms McCormick’s Evidence

Ms McCormick said she was the complainant’s foster mother. She confirmed that she spoke to the respondent who confirmed that he would accept HAP. When issues arose with the HAP forms between the respondent and the local authority, she assured him that the rent would be paid once the issue was resolved. The respondent requested her to leave the HAP forms in several locations where he would pick them up. Despite her attempts, to assist with the HAP issue, it was never resolved.

She said she received a stressful phone call from the complainant when the electricity had been cut-off and that she was put under pressure to leave the property.

The respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing.

The Law

In accordance with the Equal Status Act 2000, an individual may seek redress in respect of any prohibited conduct that has been directed against him or her by referring a case to the WRC.

As per Section 3 of the Act, discrimination is taken to have occurred where a person is treated less favourably than another person is (or would be) treated in a comparable situation and by reason of any of the discriminatory grounds.

The Equal Status Act prohibits discrimination in the context of buying and selling goods from and to the public (or a section thereof) and also prohibits discrimination in the context of using and providing services available to the public (or a section thereof).

Section 3(3B) provides that discrimination in relation providing accommodation is prohibited under all the existing protected grounds and inserts the housing assistance ground as follows:

“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.”).

In relation to the applicable burden of proof, Section 38A of the Acts is applicable to all complaints of discrimination under the Act and requires the complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which discrimination can be inferred. The onus then shifts to the respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

The Section reads

38A.—(1) Where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of a person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary.

Section 27(1) provides that redress may be ordered where there has been a finding in favour of the complainant. The Act allows for compensation for the effects that the discriminatory treatment has had on the complainant.

Finding

I am satisfied that the testimony from the complainant was consistent with the documents put into evidence. The witness, Ms Mc Cormick also corroborated the testimony on her efforts to get the HAP issue resolved. Both the complainant and witness were led to believe that HAP payments would be accepted by the respondent. It then became clear that the respondent did not provide the necessary information to the local authority for HAP to be processed. In failing to facilitate the processing of the HAP payment, the respondent was engaging in prohibited conduct, as described by the Act.

I am satisfied with the testimony that the complainant and her foster mother made repeated attempts to resolve the HAP issue. The inactions of the respondent to resolve the issue had a significant effect on the complainant. Without the assisted rent payment, the complainant could not afford to remain in the property. The respondent would have been fully aware of this.

As per the notification requirement in the Act, the complainant sent the ES1 Form to the respondent. The respondent did not reply. As per section 25 of the Act, I can draw inferences from the failure of the respondent to provide material information.

The complainant has made out her case that discrimination can be inferred. As it can be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary. The respondent did not avail of the opportunity to answer ES1 Notification Form. He also did not attend the WRC hearing.

I find that prohibited conduct occurred and the complaint is well founded.

Redress

In deciding on the appropriate redress as per section 27 of the Act, I need to assess the effects of the discriminatory treatment on the complainant. She could not avail of the HAP payment from January 2024 to August 2024. She was also forced to leave the property.

The effects of the discriminatory treatment had serious consequences for the complainant. She was left in a precarious situation without knowing if she would receive HAP assistance. Ultimately, she had to leave the property and find alternative accommodation.

I order the respondent to pay compensation of €8,000 to the complainant, as appropriate redress in the circumstances.   

I find that prohibited conduct occurred and the complaint is well founded.

I order the respondent to pay compensation of €8,000 to the complainant, as appropriate redress in the circumstances.  

Equal Status, Housing Assistance Payment