Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Derek  Darling

Patrick Merlehan

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-00068389-001

02/01/2025

The complainant referred a complaint to the WRC that he was discriminated against due to his disability when he sought rental accommodation.

Summary of Complainant’s Evidence

The complainant, Mr Darling, gave testimony that he registered his interest in renting property. He said that he received an email response on 15th November 2024 from the respondent or representative of the respondent that he put into evidence.

The email stated-

‘Many thanks for your inquiry. Viewing is on ……… at ………….

Private agreements only and not government schemes thank you.’

He replied that-

‘Im disabled and receive financial assistance from the government with my rent you broke at least one law by stating no government schemes. Am I invited to the viewing or should we involve the RTB in the matter?’

He then received another reply-

‘Sorry to know you are disabled.

Unfortunately we do not have facilities or conveniences for people needing assistance.

Thanking you.’

He said that he was discriminated against as the respondent did not even enquire as to his needs. He said he only requires minor adjustments and yet he was not considered worthy of a viewing.

On 13th December 2024, he sent the respondent the ES1 Notification Form as required under the Act. He said he did not receive a response from the respondent. He then referred the complaint to the WRC on 2nd January 2025.

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

The Law

Discrimination on ground of disability.

4.—(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.

(2) A refusal or failure to provide the special treatment or facilities to which subsection (1) refers shall not be deemed reasonable unless such provision would give rise to a cost, other than a nominal cost, to the provider of the service in question.

Section (6) states-

“provider of a service” means—

(a) ………

(b) ………

(c) ………

(d) the person responsible for the provision of accommodation or any related services or amenities in respect of which section 6 (1)(c) applies,

Disposal of premises and provision of accommodation.

6.—(1) A person shall not discriminate in—

(a) …………

(b) ………..

(c) subject to subsection (1A), providing accommodationor any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities.

Burden of Proof

In relation to the applicable burden of proof, Section 38A of the Act is applicable to all complaints of discrimination 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 of the complainant was consistent with the e-mails put into evidence.

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 his case and discrimination can be inferred as there was a refusal to accept his interest in viewing the property, due to his disability. 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 the 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. He made an initial inquiry by email and his case relies on the email exchange with the respondent. The effects of the discrimination was that he could not attend the viewing of the property.

Although it was clearly discriminatory treatment, the complainant did not outline the reasonable accommodation required due to his disability. He also did not incur financial costs, as he solely expressed an interest in renting the property.

I order the respondent to pay compensation of €400 to the complainant, as appropriate redress in the circumstances.  

I order the respondent to pay compensation of €400 to the complainant, as appropriate redress in the circumstances.  

Equal Status, Disability