Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Mohammed Moshiur  Rahman

Richie Moore

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Changiz Durrani, B.L., instructed by IMK Law

Arthur Cush, B.L., instructed by Kenny Sullivan 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-00067536-001

20/11/2024

The Complainant rented a property from the Respondent on 07/07/2017.  The Respondent served notice of termination on 20/04/2024.  The Complainant and his family vacated the property on 06/08/2024.

The Respondent subsequently offered the Complainant to return and continue to rent the property as his plans for the property did not work out as expected.  The Complainant submits that when trying to rearrange the letting of the property on this occasion he was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground.  The Respondent agreed to re-let the property and then changed his mind.

The Respondent refutes that the Complainant was discriminated against.  He is a HAP compliant landlord and the reason he changed his mind was that when the full extent of the condition of the property became clear he decided that he did not want the Complainant as a tenant.

The Complainant gave evidence on oath.  He stated that he had a conversation with the Respondent on 03/07/2024.  The Respondent offered him the rental of the house on a cash basis.  The Complainant stated that when he mentioned HAP payments the Complainant said that he would not accept HAP.

The Complainant stated that on 06/08/2024 the Respondent arrived at the house, he inspected it and was happy and then he returned the Complainant’s deposit. About 17 days later the Respondent contacted him to offer the house back.  When the Complainant accepted the offer and mentioned HAP the Respondent did not reply.

The Complainant stated that he went to the house on 26/08/2024 and met the Respondent who told him that he was going to sell the property.  The Complainant stated that on 02/09/2024 he discovered that there was another tenant in the house and he was paying his rent in cash.  The Complainant stated that he knew this person as he was also from Bangladesh. 

The Complainant stated that after COVID-19 in 2021 he asked the Respondent if he could use the HAP scheme.  The Respondent refused.

Cross examination – the Complainant:

The Complainant was cross examined by Mr Cush, B.L., on behalf of the Respondent.  He was asked if he complied with the provisions of the letting agreement dated 19/06/2017.  The Complainant said that he did.  He also stated that the Respondent was happy that he did as he returned his deposit.  The Complainant stated that he always kept the property in good order.   It was put to the Complainant that he sublet a part of this property for about five years and he agreed that he did but this was with the consent of the Respondent.  The Complainant was asked why there was no provision in the lease agreement that would allow him to sublet.  The Complainant stated that the Respondent was aware that he had sublet for five years and the Respondent never said that he could not.

The Complainant was asked if he mentioned on his HAP application that he had sublet the property.  The Complainant stated that he did not sublet when he applied for HAP.  The Complainant confirmed that he was removed from the HAP scheme when they discovered that he had sublet part of the property.

It was put to the Complainant that he gave evidence that the Respondent refused to accept HAP in 2021 or 2022.  He was asked which year it happened and he stated that he could not recall.  The Complainant confirmed that he was not aware that the Respondent had accepted HAP for another property for a number of years.  The Complainant agreed that the Respondent did process the HAP forms.  The HAP payments stopped when they discovered the subletting arrangements but the payment was subsequently restored.

It was put to the Complainant that his evidence was inconsistent in relation to when he first asked the Respondent if he would accept HAP payments.   The Complainant confirmed that the Respondent did cooperate with the application in July 2023.   It was put to the Complainant that his removal from the HAP scheme was due entirely to factors outside of the Respondent’s control.  The Complainant agreed.

It was put to the Complainant that on 26/08/2024 the Respondent told him that he would not be letting the property as he intended to sell the house.  The Complainant agreed.

The Complainant was asked to review an email sent by the Respondent on 16/4/2024 to the County Council and a number of Councillors.  He agreed that the Complainant outlined his position to the Council which was that he intended to sell the property  and he was trying to assist the Complainant and he asked the Council to consider the purchase of this property under the provisions of the  Tenant in Situ Scheme.  The Complainant stated that the content of this email does not match the Respondent’s communication with him which had stopped.

The Complainant was asked if stood over the statement in his submission that “The Landlord did offer to re-occupy the property but on different terms such as increased rent contrary to the rules and legislation of RTB and no HAP just cash”.   

The Complainant was asked about the email he sent to the Respondent on 22/08/2024.  He confirmed that he thanked the Respondent for being a good landlord over the previous seven years.  He also stated that in the email that he could not rent the house on a cash only basis as he understood that the Respondent would not accept HAP.  It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent replied to him the following day and clarified that the house was offered on a cash payment basis as HAP had stopped paying the rent for the Complainant due to reasons not connected with the Respondent.  The email also confirmed that the Respondent stated,  “I would have taken the HAP payment.  The HAP payment was stopped due to your own issues”.  The Complainant agreed that was what the email stated.  It was also put to the Complainant that the final sentence clearly stated, “Again I’m offering the house to you again I can take cash or I can take the HAP option also” and this is not a refusal to take the HAP payment.  The Complainant agreed but stated that the Respondent changed his mind on 26/08/2024. 

The Complainant was asked to explain what he intended when the stated in the ES1 form that the Respondent did not intend to sell the house but to raise the rent in order to exclude him from renting and using HAP.  The Complainant stated that he wanted the Respondent to put his reasons for not selling in writing and to explain why he changed his mind about renting the property to him.  It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent had already clarified in his email to him that he was not selling the house.  The Complainant stated that the house was now rented to someone else who was paying cash.

It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent in the ES.2 form he provided a clear narrative in relation to the renting history and then explained why the property was not sold to the Council.  The remainder of that paragraph gave a long and very detailed account of the damage which was noted in the property and confirmed that this was the reason he did not progress with renting it to the Complainant.  The Complainant stated that the allegations in relation to the conditions of the house are not true.

The Complainant, and the hearing, was shown a series of photographs taken by the Respondent and the Complainant provided explanations in relation to why some of these had occurred.  The Complainant also stated that during his tenancy he painted the house twice, changed carpets and provided some of the appliances as the Respondent did not replace them.  It was put to the Complainant that it was as a result of the condition of the house that he was refused the opoortunity to rent it again.  The Complainant stated that the house was never in good condition.  The Respondent did not want the Complainant to fix things and the Respondent never looked after the property.  It was put to the Complainant that this contradicts what he stated in his email of 22/08/2024 when he said, “First of all, I would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to be your tenant for the last 7 years and thank you for being a good landlord”.    The Complainant stated that the Respondent checked the house when the tenancy came to an end and he returned his deposit.  The Complainant stated that he ”had no bad relationship” with the Respondent when he left. 

It was put to the Complainant that the evidence completely contradicts his evidence.  The Complainant stated that the real reason he was not given the property was because of HAP.

Evidence - Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman:

Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman gave evidence on oath.  She stated that she wished to give evidence in relation to the effects all of this had on her and her family.  The family are now in a direct provision centre and this is disruptive on her children.  Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman also gave evidence in relation to the HAP payments.  The Respondent did accept HAP from them for 2/3 years and they lost the HAP payments sometime in 2024.  The Respondent gave them notice to quit and they left the house when this notice expired. Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman gave evidence that when they lost the HAP payments the Respondent asked for cash payment.  Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman also provided the hearing with photographs which she said showed that the house was well kept.

Cross examination - Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman:

Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman was cross examined by Mr Cush, B.L., on behalf of the Respondent. Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman was asked when they previously requested the Respondent to accept HAP payments.  She stated that this was in 2020 or 2021.  It was put to Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman that the Respondent will give evidence that the first time they asked him to accept HAP payments was in July 2023.  She did not think this was correct.  It was also put to Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman that the Respondent offered the house back to them and that he would accept HAP.  She confirmed that this was correct.  Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman was asked what happened after that and she said that he decided not to accept them as tenants.  It was put  to the Complainant that the photographs shown earlier at the hearing show that the house was in very poor condition.  She stated that she would disagree.  Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman confirmed that her photographs were taken two to three months before they left the house.  It was put to the witness that the photographs she took are very different from the ones the Respondent took.  For example the colour on the wall.  She stated that there were some differences.

Closing submission:

Mr Durrani, B.L., made some observations following the cross examination of Mrs Sabequn Nahar Rahman.  He stated that the Respondent, as a landlord, is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property.  What the photographs show is normal wear and tear.  In relation to the violation of HAP Mr Durrani noted that the Respondent received an email from the Council on 16/05/2024 which stated that subletting by the Complainant was a breach of their HAP contract and this was discovered during an interview for a separate housing scheme.  This email confirms that the Respondent was aware of the subletting and he did not raise any concern about it. Mr Durrani stated that despite all that was said the condition of the property was due to wear and tear and did not constitute damage.

Mr Durrani stated that the there were no documents provided to show that the Respondent acted in good faith.  The Complainant is seeking compensation for the discrimination and its effect on his family. 

The Respondent gave evidence on affirmation.  He confirmed  that he purchased the property in 2002 and spent approximately €30k to ensure it was in good condition.  The Respondent stated that it was in such good condition that he would happily have lived there himself.  The property was let between 2015 and 2017 and while there was some wear and tear it was in good condition overall.

The Respondent confirmed that the lease which the Complainant signed included the attic room which he described as the nicest room in the house.  The Complainant rented the entire property and that included the attic room.  The Respondent stated that it was the tenant’s responsibility to look after the garden area. The Respondent gave evidence that there were two clauses in the lease agreement which stated that it was to be used as a residence for the named tenants and their dependants and a further clause which prohibited subletting any part of the property.  The Respondent stated that these clauses were included so as to ensure that it was only the Complainant and his children who were in the property.  The Respondent confirmed that he was not aware that the Complainant had sublet the attic room.  The Respondent stated that he never met the person who was renting this room from the Complainant. 

The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s rent was due on the first Friday of each month.  He was sometimes short and he stated that he adopted an understanding approach in relation to this. The Respondent confirmed that his written submission contained a series of text messages he exchanged with the Complainant from 2020 up to 2023 which related to the Complainant advising that he was short or late with the rent and the Respondent’s replies to these indicating that he was willing to help him out.

The Respondent also confirmed that he issued a reference request in 2019 for the Complainant when he was requested to do so and was willing to help them as he had a good relationship with them.  The Respondent gave evidence that the Complainant did not ask for HAP in 2021.   The Respondent stated that he has no difficulties in accepting HAP payments and provided details of another property where he is in receipt of a HAP payment and continues to receive this.

The Respondent stated that when the Complainant asked him to accept HAP payment in July 2023 he was happy to do so and he had to provide paperwork and he was familiar with the process.  The Respondent stated that the HAP payments continued until April or May.  The Respondent stated that when he queried why the HAP payments ceased the Council informed him on 16/05/2025 that the Complainant was in breach of the HAP contract due to the subletting.  The Respondent was asked about the Complainant’s position that he did not sublet but he allowed someone to use the address of the property for another housing scheme.  The Respondent stated that he would never have allowed this if he was asked to do so.

The Respondent was asked to explain the reasoning behind his letter to the Council and councillors in April 2024.  He stated that he had to sell the house as he had purchased another house.  He wanted the Complainant and his family to be included in the Tenant in Situ scheme as this would have allowed them to remain in the property if the Council decided to purchase it. The Council decided not to proceed with the purchase and under the scheme they do not have to provide any reasons for not doing so.  The Respondent stated that while this was happening he did not activate the eviction notice and permitted the Complainant to remain in the property until 06/08/2024 as a good will gesture.  The Respondent confirmed that the Complainant moved out on 06/08/2024 and he returned the deposit.  He confirmed that it is always his practice to return a deposit.  He thought that the house initially looked ok.  The Respondent stated that he did feel sorry for the family at that time.   The Respondent was asked if it undermined his defence that he returned the deposit and then changed his mind about letting the Complainant rent the property again.  The Respondent stated that when the full extent of the damage became known to him he changed his mind.

The Respondent gave evidence that he had engaged with an auctioneer but did not sell as the planning permission on the property had elapsed and while waiting to have this approved again he was willing to let the Complainant rent the property again on the same rent as previously.  The Respondent stated that in his offer he did not mention HAP simply because he was aware that they had lost the HAP payments and were paying the rent in cash before they left.  The Respondent stated he did not refuse HAP and that it is his belief that the HAP payments are better as he will always get the rent.  The Respondent confirmed that in an email to the Complainant on 23/09/2024 he clearly stated that he was willing to rent the house again and to take cash or the HAP option.  The Respondent stated that the Complainant replied to his email that he was surprised and wanted to progress the matter.  The Respondent stated that he met the Complainant on 26/08/2024 and as he had a full assessment of the property at that time he decided that he did not want the Complainant and his family return as tenants.  He stated that the house was filthy and there was no agreement with the Complainant in relation to the painting he done.  The Respondent stated that he has accepted HAP payments for years and never had any issue with HAP.

The Respondent stated that the Complainant was wrong when he stated on the ES.1 form that he would not accept HAP and that he was not Revenue compliant.  The Respondent stated that he has no difficulty with HAP and in order to receive HAP you have to be Revenue compliant which he confirmed he is.  The Respondent stated that the Complainant’s evidence that he never responded to any repair requests was wrong.  He regularly got repairs done.  In addition to this when he called to the house to collect the rent each month he would check with the Complainant or his wife if everything was ok.

The Respondent stated that he had had to spend about €4,500 to date in trying to sort the property.  He confirmed that the receipts in his written submission confirm this.  The Respondent also stated that he has spent a considerable amount of time working on the property.

The Respondent stated that the hearsay evidence of the Complainant in relation to the current renting of the property is incorrect.  The person who is currently residing in the property is there in a caretaker capacity.  The Complainant is also wrong about this person paying rent as there is no rental agreement and there is no rent paid.

The Respondent stated in evidence that he expected to have planning permission in by the end of March 2025.  He confirmed that the letter from an auctioneer included in his written submission is confirmation of his intention to sell the property.

The Respondent denied that he refused to let the property to the Complainant due to HAP.  The sole reason for not renting the property was the significant amount of damage to the property by the Complainant when he rented it previously.

Cross examination – the Respondent:

The Respondent was cross examined by Mr Durrani, B.L., on behalf of the Complainant.  The Respondent was asked when he inspected the property after renting it in 2017.  The Respondent could not recall but confirmed that he did not inspect it every month but when he collected the rent on a monthly basis he always asked if everything was ok.  The Respondent confirmed that he did not have any documents or photographs from that time.  The Respondent was asked if he undertook an inspection of the property with the Complainant when the tenancy commenced and he confirmed that he did not.  They walked through the property and made a list of contents for inclusion in the lease. There was no inspection report done at that time.

It was put to the Respondent that when he issued the notice to quit to the Complainant he stated that the reason for doing so was that he intended to sell the property.  The Respondent stated that was the case but as the planning permission had expired he could not sell until he had reapplied and sorted that.

The Respondent was asked who the person was who was subletting the attic room. The Respondent stated that he was not aware that this room was sublet and he did not know who the person was.  The Respondent was asked about how he caried out maintenance and repairs after 2017.  He stated that he did not inspect the property but did remove various cuttings from the garden area.

It was put to the Respondent that the bank statement he opened at the hearing states that it is a payment from another County Council but it does not specify that this is a HAP payment.  The Respondent stated that he can get this confirmation.

It was put to the Respondent that no landlord would have returned the deposit if the damage was as significant as the Respondent alleged it was.  The Respondent stated that in hindsight he should have undertaken a closer inspection.

It was put to the Respondent that it was the Complainant who looked after the property. The Respondent stated that he responded to anything he was asked  by the Complainant but he also checked on a monthly  basis if everything was ok.

Closing submission:

Mr Cush, B.L., made a closing submission on behalf of the Respondent.  He stated that there is agreement in relation to what the law is in this matter.  That is that a person cannot be treated less favourably simply because they avail of the HAP scheme.  The case of Crawford v The Bootlegger Bar (DEC-S2003-146) sets out how the task of deciding whether the alleged discrimination of refusing to re-let the property was due to the Complainant being in receipt of HAP payments and would the Complainant if he was not in the HAP scheme be treated the same.  The evidence is clear that the Respondent reneged on the offer to re let the property due to the state the Complainants left the property in.  The evidence is also clear that the Respondent previously accepted HAP from the Complainant and is currently accepting HAP from another tenant.  The Respondent agreed to accept HAP in writing and this clearly contradicts what the Complainant outlined in the ES.1 form.

There was also clear evidence of the damage to the property.  The Respondent was very clear with the Complainant on 26/08/2024 that the reason he was no longer going to rent the property to him was due to the damage done to the property.  The same decision would have applied if the Complainant was not availing of the HAP scheme.

It was submitted that the onus is on the Complainant to prove his case.  The evidence of the Complainant was inconsistent.  There was also an element of dishonesty when the Complainant allowed someone else to use the address of the property. This evidence needs to be weighed up.  All the evidence shows very clearly that the Complainant was not treated less favourably as he was availing of the HAP scheme.  The condition the Complainant left the property in was the sole determining factor.

The complaint of discrimination on the ground of race and housing assistance brought by Mohammed Moshit Rahman against Ritchie Moore is not well founded.

Discrimination Housing assistance ground.