Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Ayodeji  Saanu

Mr Muhammad Naeem Aslam

Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{text}

{text}

Representatives

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00066991-001

28/10/2024

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

CA-00066991-002

28/10/2024

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

CA-00066991-003

28/10/2024

The complainant submitted that he was discriminated against CA-00066991-001, victimized CA-00066991-002 and harassed CA-00066991-003 by the respondent when he sought Housing Assistance Programme (HAP).

The complainant on 04/12/2023 requested the respondent, his Landlord, to fill-out the relevant part of the Rent Supplement Form, The respondent refused, saying "We dont accept Housing Supplement Payment". Later on the same day, the respondent sent another message saying "I do not accept HAP, sorry cant help you on that".   The complainant did not pursue the matter as he felt vulnerable as a tenant.

On 01/10/2024, the complainant sent his Landlord a letter, explaining to him in detail, that the complainant was scheduled for Surgery 08/10/2024 and will be "incapacitated for work", for a few weeks after surgery and therefore would not have income and would be unable to pay Rent from his pocket.   He was advised that he qualified for assistance through the Housing Assistance Program (HAP) but the respondent called on WhatsApp, and said 'I dont accept HAP' and that he will evict the complainant, if the complainant insisted that the respondent accept it. The complainant advised that it is discriminatory and unlawful to refuse HAP or Rent Supplement, more so in the circumstances where the complainant could not work or earn income, due to a medical condition (surgery).

.

On 03/10/2024 the complainant asked for an update on the WhatsApp discussion where he had been threatened with eviction and the complainant pleaded with the respondent to reconsider the refusal of signing HAP/Rent Supplement as this was the only way the complainant could pay his rent. On 06/10/2024 the respondent then sent a message threatening to end the Tenancy and eject the complainant and his family over the complaint about the respondent’s refusal to accept HAP/Rent Supplement. The complainant issued an ES1 on 08/10/2024 and the respondent replied “my solicitor will take care of this – if and when needed.  I want to inform you that an inspection of the property will take place on 06 Nov morning time at 10:30 am”.  The complaint was received by the WRC on 28/10/2024.  The respondent was informed by the complainant that it is also unlawful to threaten the family with the risk of homelessness, just because of a legitimate request to sign HAP/Rent Supplement Form, in the capacity as Landlord. The landlord then gave 28 days Notice to vacate the Apartment and when reminded that having spent 21 Months as tenants there was an entitlement to 152 days of Notice,. The respondent then said he is adept at this sort of thing, has three Apartments and knows how to deal with People like the complainant. He then sent another, immediately on WhatsApp Chat message, stating that "Unfortunately situation has changed for me, which means l need the Apartment for myself"! This is a direct Victimization, as a result of the complainant asking him to accept HAP/Rent Supplement, which he bluntly refused.

It was submitted that there has been a running battle to get the respondent to give his Postal Address, since December 2023, to no avail. Notification Form ES1 was sent filing a Complaint and also sent him the Response Form ES2, requesting that he provide with a Postal Address, on 08/10/2024. He refused to respond on the ES2 Form and also refused to provide his Postal Address. His only response, through his WhatsApp Chat, was stating that "My Solicitor will take care of this - if and when needed". The complainant submitted that they are harassed with threat of eviction, for telling the respondent Landlord not to discriminate against, on HAP/Rent Supplement but he has refused bluntly.

The complainant’s evidence was that the respondent would not provide a postal address for the respondent so that the complainant could forward documents to him and that he was paying €2,100 for 2-bedroom accommodation.  When the complainant first requested HAP the respondent said he does not accept HAP and when the complainant became unwell and needed surgery in October 2024 he was out of work, needed support with the rent and provided another HAP form to the respondent.  He and his wife felt threatened by the respondent’s behaviour.  When the complainant asked the respondent what would he do if he could not pay the rent as he was out sick the respondent told him he could leave the property.  As a result of this the complainant had to go back to work earlier than he was fit to and got an infection and feels the respondent is still threatening the complainant. 

When the complainant sent the ES1 and ES2, the respondent would not give the complainant his address and in the conversation with the respondent the respondent said that he has refused a lot of people HAP.  The response of the respondent to the ES1 was to arrange an inspection which the complainant deemed was a response to the ES1 and it was not necessary to wait any further time submitting his complaint to the WRC at the end of October.   The respondent arranged for his agent to pick up the letters and served eviction notice on the complainant on 18/12/2024, notice to terminate was invalid and the complainant is still under notice of eviction.

The respondent did not attend.

The respondent did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing and find his failure to attend unexplained.  The complainant submits that he was discriminated against on the  housing assistance ground and that he was victimised  and harassed. 

The Act sets out that

Discrimination (general).

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) where a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

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

(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”).

…….(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”).

 Disposal of premises and provision of accommodation.

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

(a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises,

(b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or

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

(1A) Subsection (1)(c) is without prejudice to—

(a) any enactment or rule of law regulating the provision of accommodation, or

(b) the right of a person providing accommodation to make it a condition of the provision of that accommodation that rent supplement is paid directly to that person.

Sexual and other harassment.

11.—(1) A person shall not sexually harass or harass (within the meaning of subsection (4) or (5)) another person (“the victim”) where the victim—

(a) avails or seeks to avail himself or herself of any service provided by the person or purchases or seeks to purchase any goods being disposed of by the person,

(b) is the proposed or actual recipient from the person of any premises or of any accommodation or services or amenities related to accommodation, or

(c) is a student at, has applied for admission to or avails or seeks to avail himself or herself of any service offered by, any educational establishment (within the meaning of section 7) at which the person is in a position of authority.

(2) A person (“the responsible person”) who is responsible for the operation of any place that is an educational establishment or at which goods, services or accommodation facilities are offered to the public shall not permit another person who has a right to be present in or to avail himself or herself of any facilities, goods or services provided at that place, to suffer sexual harassment or harassment at that place.

(3) It shall be a defence for the responsible person to prove that he or she took such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent the sexual harassment or harassment, as the case may be, of the other person referred to in subsection (2) or of a category of persons of which that other person is a member.

(4) A person’s rejection of, or submission to, sexual or other harassment may not be used by any other person as a basis for a decision affecting that person.

(5) (a) In this section—

(i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and

(ii) references to sexual harassment are to any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,

being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.

(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.]

Redress in respect of prohibited conduct.

21…(2) Before seeking redress under this section the complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,

and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission[or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

(4) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court shall not investigate a case unless Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or the Circuit Court, as the case may be,is satisfied either that the respondent has replied to the notification or that at least one month has elapsed after it was sent to the respondent.

Section 38A of the 2000 Act provides for the applicable burden of proof and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination or victimisation alleged may be inferred.  It is only where such a prima facie case of discrimination or victimisation, as the case may be, has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut that inference.

The complainant’s credible evidence was that he requested HAP on 04/12/2023 and provided details of a WhatsApp message from the respondent who said he did not accept HAP.  I note that the complainant did not pursue the matter at that stage owing to his vulnerable position as a tenant.  The incident within the cognisable period was when the complainant pursued the HAP again as he would have reduced income owing to surgery and reached out again to the respondent on 01/10/2024.  I note an ES1 was sent to which the respondent who was refusing to provide a postal address responded by arranging an inspection of the property.  This Inspections of the property was not a normal occurrence and therefore, clearly an extraordinary response to the complainant’s actions and the complainant’s evidence was that the response of the respondent was owing to the notice he gave of “intention to take” action against the respondent.  The complainant was also advised that he would be evicted if he pursued the complaint.  The complainant deemed this to be victimisation and harassment.  I note the complainant did not await a specific reply from the respondent by the way of the ES2 as he deemed that the respondent had “replied to the notification”  by the respondent’s actions of having an inspection done of the property and threat of notice of termination and a complaint was submitted to the WRC owing to what the complainant submitted was his frustration with the respondent and the respondent’s failure to provide a postal address.  I accept therefore, that the respondent’s response of an inspection and threat of notice of termination was a response that satisfies Section 21(4) whereby the “the respondent has repliedto the notification”.

The complainant submits that the respondent discriminated against him by refusing to pay HAP.  In the absence of evidence from the respondent, I find that the complainant gave a credible account supported by correspondence with the respondent such that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination.  Thedelays and obstacles placed in the complainant’s path and refusal by the respondent to complete the HAP application form amounts to less favourable treatment than a tenant not entitled to HAP and/or otherwise in a position to discharge his/her rent.  The  complainant was in a vulnerable position when he required surgery such that his income would have been significantly reduced and required HAP.  The respondent has not rebutted the prima facie case of discriminations and based on the credible evidence I find that the respondent did engage in a prohibited act on the housing assistance ground against the complainant and based on all the circumstances of this complaint I award the complainant €12,000.

The complainant on 04/12/2023 requested the respondent, his Landlord, to fill-out the relevant part of the Rent Supplement Form, The respondent refused, saying "We dont accept Housing Supplement Payment". Later on the same day, the respondent sent another message saying "I do not accept HAP, sorry cant help you on that".   The complainant did not pursue the matter as he felt vulnerable as a tenant.

On 01/10/2024, the complainant sent his Landlord a letter, explaining to him in detail, that the complainant was scheduled for Surgery 08/10/2024 and will be "incapacitated for work", for a few weeks after surgery and therefore would not have income and would be unable to pay Rent from his pocket.   He was advised that he qualified for assistance through the "Housing Assistance Program (HAP) but the respondent called on WhatsApp, and said 'I dont accept HAP' and that he will evict the complainant, if the complainant insisted that the respondent accept it. The complainant advised that it is discriminatory and unlawful to refuse HAP or Rent Supplement, more so in the circumstances where the complainant could not work or earn income, due to a medical condition (surgery).

.

On 03/10/2024 the complainant asked for an update on the WhatsApp discussion where he had been threatened with eviction and the complainant pleaded with the respondent to reconsider the refusal of signing HAP/Rent Supplement as this was the only way the complainant could pay his rent. On 06/10/2024 the respondent then sent a message threatening to end the Tenancy and eject the complainant and his family over the complaint about the respondent’s refusal to accept HAP/Rent Supplement. The complainant issued an ES1 on 08/10/2024 and the respondent replied “my solicitor will take care of this – if and when needed.  I want to inform you that an inspection of the property will take place on 06 Nov morning time at 10:30 am”.  The complaint was received by the WRC on 28/10/2024.  The respondent was informed by the complainant that it is also unlawful to threaten the family with the risk of homelessness, just because of a legitimate request to sign HAP/Rent Supplement Form, in the capacity as Landlord. The landlord then gave 28 days Notice to vacate the Apartment and when reminded that having spent 21 Months as tenants there was an entitlement to 152 days of Notice,. The respondent then said he is adept at this sort of thing, has three Apartments and knows how to deal with People like the complainant. He then sent another, immediately on WhatsApp Chat message, stating that "Unfortunately situation has changed for me, which means l need the Apartment for myself"! This is a direct Victimization, as a result of the complainant asking him to accept HAP/Rent Supplement, which he bluntly refused.

It was submitted that there has been a running battle to get the respondent to give his Postal Address, since December 2023, to no avail. Notification Form ES1 was sent filing a Complaint and also sent him the Response Form ES2, requesting that he provide with a Postal Address, on 08/10/2024. He refused to respond on the ES2 Form and also refused to provide his Postal Address. His only response, through his WhatsApp Chat, was stating that "My Solicitor will take care of this - if and when needed". The complainant submitted that they are harassed with threat of eviction, for telling the respondent Landlord not to discriminate against, on HAP/Rent Supplement but he has refused bluntly.

The complainant’s evidence was that the respondent would not provide a postal address for the respondent so that the complainant could forward documents to him and that he was paying €2,100 for 2-bedroom accommodation.  When the complainant first requested HAP the respondent said he does not accept HAP and when the complainant became unwell and needed surgery in October 2024 he was out of work, needed support with the rent and provided another HAP form to the respondent.  He and his wife felt threatened by the respondent’s behaviour.  When the complainant asked the respondent what would he do if he could not pay the rent as he was out sick the respondent told him he could leave the property.  As a result of this the complainant had to go back to work earlier than he was fit to and got an infection and feels the respondent is still threatening the complainant. 

When the complainant sent the ES1 and ES2, the respondent would not give the complainant his address and in the conversation with the respondent the respondent said that he has refused a lot of people HAP.  The response of the respondent to the ES1 was to arrange an inspection which the complainant deemed was a response to the ES1 and it was not necessary to wait any further time submitting his complaint to the WRC at the end of October.   The respondent arranged for his agent to pick up the letters and served eviction notice on the complainant on 18/12/2024, notice to terminate was invalid and the complainant is still under notice of eviction.

The respondent did not attend.

The respondent did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing and find his failure to attend unexplained.  The complainant submits that he was discriminated against on the  housing assistance ground and that he was victimised  and harassed. 

The Act sets out that

Discrimination (general).

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) where a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

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

(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”).

…….(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”).

 Disposal of premises and provision of accommodation.

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

(a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises,

(b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or

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

(1A) Subsection (1)(c) is without prejudice to—

(a) any enactment or rule of law regulating the provision of accommodation, or

(b) the right of a person providing accommodation to make it a condition of the provision of that accommodation that rent supplement is paid directly to that person.

Sexual and other harassment.

11.—(1) A person shall not sexually harass or harass (within the meaning of subsection (4) or (5)) another person (“the victim”) where the victim—

(a) avails or seeks to avail himself or herself of any service provided by the person or purchases or seeks to purchase any goods being disposed of by the person,

(b) is the proposed or actual recipient from the person of any premises or of any accommodation or services or amenities related to accommodation, or

(c) is a student at, has applied for admission to or avails or seeks to avail himself or herself of any service offered by, any educational establishment (within the meaning of section 7) at which the person is in a position of authority.

(2) A person (“the responsible person”) who is responsible for the operation of any place that is an educational establishment or at which goods, services or accommodation facilities are offered to the public shall not permit another person who has a right to be present in or to avail himself or herself of any facilities, goods or services provided at that place, to suffer sexual harassment or harassment at that place.

(3) It shall be a defence for the responsible person to prove that he or she took such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent the sexual harassment or harassment, as the case may be, of the other person referred to in subsection (2) or of a category of persons of which that other person is a member.

(4) A person’s rejection of, or submission to, sexual or other harassment may not be used by any other person as a basis for a decision affecting that person.

(5) (a) In this section—

(i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and

(ii) references to sexual harassment are to any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,

being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.

(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.]

Redress in respect of prohibited conduct.

21…(2) Before seeking redress under this section the complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,

and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission[or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

(4) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court shall not investigate a case unless Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or the Circuit Court, as the case may be,is satisfied either that the respondent has replied to the notification or that at least one month has elapsed after it was sent to the respondent.

Section 38A of the 2000 Act provides for the applicable burden of proof and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination or victimisation alleged may be inferred.  It is only where such a prima facie case of discrimination or victimisation, as the case may be, has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut that inference.

The complainant’s credible evidence was that he requested HAP on 04/12/2023 and provided details of a WhatsApp message from the respondent who said he did not accept HAP.  I note that the complainant did not pursue the matter at that stage owing to his vulnerable position as a tenant.  The incident within the cognisable period was when the complainant pursued the HAP again as he would have reduced income owing to surgery and reached out again to the respondent on 01/10/2024.  I note an ES1 was sent to which the respondent who was refusing to provide a postal address responded by arranging an inspection of the property.  This Inspections of the property was not a normal occurrence and therefore, clearly an extraordinary response to the complainant’s actions and the complainant’s evidence was that the response of the respondent was owing to the notice he gave of “intention to take” action against the respondent.  The complainant was also advised that he would be evicted if he pursued the complaint.  The complainant deemed this to be victimisation and harassment.  I note the complainant did not await a specific reply from the respondent by the way of the ES2 as he deemed that the respondent had “replied to the notification”  by the respondent’s actions of having an inspection done of the property and threat of notice of termination and a complaint was submitted to the WRC owing to what the complainant submitted was his frustration with the respondent and the respondent’s failure to provide a postal address.  I accept therefore, that the respondent’s response of an inspection and threat of notice of termination was a response that satisfies Section 21(4) whereby the “the respondent has repliedto the notification”.

The complainant submits that the respondent victimised the complainant by arranging an inspection in response to the ES1 and threatening the complainant with notice of termination for pursuing the complaint.  In the absence of evidence from the respondent I find that the complainant gave credible evidence and I note that the inspection arranged was not the norm by the landlord and it would appear in all the circumstances that the notice of termination came about as a result of the complainant advising of his pursuit of the complaint through an ES1.  I find that the complainant has established a prima facie case that he was victimised by the respondent and the respondent has not rebutted same and I find that the respondent has engaged in a prohibited act and victimised the complainant and noting that separate awards may be made in respect of discrimination and victimisation I award the complainant €8,000.

The complainant on 04/12/2023 requested the respondent, his Landlord, to fill-out the relevant part of the Rent Supplement Form, The respondent refused, saying "We dont accept Housing Supplement Payment". Later on the same day, the respondent sent another message saying "I do not accept HAP, sorry cant help you on that".   The complainant did not pursue the matter as he felt vulnerable as a tenant.

On 01/10/2024, the complainant sent his Landlord a letter, explaining to him in detail, that the complainant was scheduled for Surgery 08/10/2024 and will be "incapacitated for work", for a few weeks after surgery and therefore would not have income and would be unable to pay Rent from his pocket.   He was advised that he qualified for assistance through the "Housing Assistance Program (HAP) but the respondent called on WhatsApp, and said 'I dont accept HAP' and that he will evict the complainant, if the complainant insisted that the respondent accept it. The complainant advised that it is discriminatory and unlawful to refuse HAP or Rent Supplement, more so in the circumstances where the complainant could not work or earn income, due to a medical condition (surgery).

.

On 03/10/2024 the complainant asked for an update on the WhatsApp discussion where he had been threatened with eviction and the complainant pleaded with the respondent to reconsider the refusal of signing HAP/Rent Supplement as this was the only way the complainant could pay his rent. On 06/10/2024 the respondent then sent a message threatening to end the Tenancy and eject the complainant and his family over the complaint about the respondent’s refusal to accept HAP/Rent Supplement. The complainant issued an ES1 on 08/10/2024 and the respondent replied “my solicitor will take care of this – if and when needed.  I want to inform you that an inspection of the property will take place on 06 Nov morning time at 10:30 am”.  The complaint was received by the WRC on 28/10/2024.  The respondent was informed by the complainant that it is also unlawful to threaten the family with the risk of homelessness, just because of a legitimate request to sign HAP/Rent Supplement Form, in the capacity as Landlord. The landlord then gave 28 days Notice to vacate the Apartment and when reminded that having spent 21 Months as tenants there was an entitlement to 152 days of Notice,. The respondent then said he is adept at this sort of thing, has three Apartments and knows how to deal with People like the complainant. He then sent another, immediately on WhatsApp Chat message, stating that "Unfortunately situation has changed for me, which means l need the Apartment for myself"! This is a direct Victimization, as a result of the complainant asking him to accept HAP/Rent Supplement, which he bluntly refused.

It was submitted that there has been a running battle to get the respondent to give his Postal Address, since December 2023, to no avail. Notification Form ES1 was sent filing a Complaint and also sent him the Response Form ES2, requesting that he provide with a Postal Address, on 08/10/2024. He refused to respond on the ES2 Form and also refused to provide his Postal Address. His only response, through his WhatsApp Chat, was stating that "My Solicitor will take care of this - if and when needed". The complainant submitted that they are harassed with threat of eviction, for telling the respondent Landlord not to discriminate against, on HAP/Rent Supplement but he has refused bluntly.

The complainant’s evidence was that the respondent would not provide a postal address for the respondent so that the complainant could forward documents to him and that he was paying €2,100 for 2-bedroom accommodation.  When the complainant first requested HAP the respondent said he does not accept HAP and when the complainant became unwell and needed surgery in October 2024 he was out of work, needed support with the rent and provided another HAP form to the respondent.  He and his wife felt threatened by the respondent’s behaviour.  When the complainant asked the respondent what would he do if he could not pay the rent as he was out sick the respondent told him he could leave the property.  As a result of this the complainant had to go back to work earlier than he was fit to and got an infection and feels the respondent is still threatening the complainant. 

When the complainant sent the ES1 and ES2, the respondent would not give the complainant his address and in the conversation with the respondent the respondent said that he has refused a lot of people HAP.  The response of the respondent to the ES1 was to arrange an inspection which the complainant deemed was a response to the ES1 and it was not necessary to wait any further time submitting his complaint to the WRC at the end of October.   The respondent arranged for his agent to pick up the letters and served eviction notice on the complainant on 18/12/2024, notice to terminate was invalid and the complainant is still under notice of eviction.

The respondent did not attend.

The respondent did not attend the hearing and I am satisfied that the respondent was on notice of the hearing and find his failure to attend unexplained.  The complainant submits that he was discriminated against on the  housing assistance ground and that he was victimised  and harassed. 

The Act sets out that

Discrimination (general).

3.—(1) For the purposes of this Act discrimination shall be taken to occur—

(a) where a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) or, if appropriate, subsection (3B), (in this Act referred to as the ‘discriminatory grounds’) which—

(i) exists,

(ii) existed but no longer exists,

(iii) may exist in the future, or

(iv) is imputed to the person concerned,

(b) where a person who is associated with another person—

(i) is treated, by virtue of that association, less favourably than a person who is not so associated is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, and

(ii) similar treatment of that other person on any of the discriminatory grounds would, by virtue of paragraph (a), constitute discrimination,

or

(c) where an apparently neutral provision would put a person referred to in any paragraph of section 3(2) at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.

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

(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”).

…….(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”).

 Disposal of premises and provision of accommodation.

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

(a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises,

(b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or

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

(1A) Subsection (1)(c) is without prejudice to—

(a) any enactment or rule of law regulating the provision of accommodation, or

(b) the right of a person providing accommodation to make it a condition of the provision of that accommodation that rent supplement is paid directly to that person.

Sexual and other harassment.

11.—(1) A person shall not sexually harass or harass (within the meaning of subsection (4) or (5)) another person (“the victim”) where the victim—

(a) avails or seeks to avail himself or herself of any service provided by the person or purchases or seeks to purchase any goods being disposed of by the person,

(b) is the proposed or actual recipient from the person of any premises or of any accommodation or services or amenities related to accommodation, or

(c) is a student at, has applied for admission to or avails or seeks to avail himself or herself of any service offered by, any educational establishment (within the meaning of section 7) at which the person is in a position of authority.

(2) A person (“the responsible person”) who is responsible for the operation of any place that is an educational establishment or at which goods, services or accommodation facilities are offered to the public shall not permit another person who has a right to be present in or to avail himself or herself of any facilities, goods or services provided at that place, to suffer sexual harassment or harassment at that place.

(3) It shall be a defence for the responsible person to prove that he or she took such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent the sexual harassment or harassment, as the case may be, of the other person referred to in subsection (2) or of a category of persons of which that other person is a member.

(4) A person’s rejection of, or submission to, sexual or other harassment may not be used by any other person as a basis for a decision affecting that person.

(5) (a) In this section—

(i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the discriminatory grounds, and

(ii) references to sexual harassment are to any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,

being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.

(b) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a), such unwanted conduct may consist of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display or circulation of written words, pictures or other material.]

Redress in respect of prohibited conduct.

21…(2) Before seeking redress under this section the complainant—

(a) shall, within 2 months after the prohibited conducted is alleged to have occurred, or, where more than one incident of prohibited conduct is alleged to have occurred, within 2 months after the last such occurrence, notify the respondent in writing of—

(i) the nature of the allegation,

(ii) the complainant’s intention, if not satisfied with the respondent’s response to the allegation, to seek redress under this Act,

and

(b) may in that notification, with a view to assisting the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission[or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court, question the respondent in writing so as to obtain material information and the respondent may, if the respondent so wishes, reply to any such questions.

(4) The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court shall not investigate a case unless Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or the Circuit Court, as the case may be,is satisfied either that the respondent has replied to the notification or that at least one month has elapsed after it was sent to the respondent.

Section 38A of the 2000 Act provides for the applicable burden of proof and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination or victimisation alleged may be inferred.  It is only where such a prima facie case of discrimination or victimisation, as the case may be, has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut that inference.

The complainant’s credible evidence was that he requested HAP on 04/12/2023 and provided details of a WhatsApp message from the respondent who said he did not accept HAP.  I note that the complainant did not pursue the matter at that stage owing to his vulnerable position as a tenant.  The incident within the cognisable period was when the complainant pursued the HAP again as he would have reduced income owing to surgery and reached out again to the respondent on 01/10/2024.  I note an ES1 was sent to which the respondent who was refusing to provide a postal address responded by arranging an inspection of the property.  This Inspections of the property was not a normal occurrence and therefore, clearly an extraordinary response to the complainant’s actions and the complainant’s evidence was that the response of the respondent was owing to the notice he gave of “intention to take” action against the respondent.  The complainant was also advised that he would be evicted if he pursued the complaint.  The complainant deemed this to be victimisation and harassment.  I note the complainant did not await a specific reply from the respondent by the way of the ES2 as he deemed that the respondent had “replied to the notification”  by the respondent’s actions of having an inspection done of the property and threat of notice of termination and a complaint was submitted to the WRC owing to what the complainant submitted was his frustration with the respondent and the respondent’s failure to provide a postal address.  I accept therefore, that the respondent’s response of an inspection and threat of notice of termination was a response that satisfies Section 21(4) whereby the “the respondent has repliedto the notification”.

The complainant submits that the respondent harassed him on the housing assistance ground and the respondent did not attend. but the complainant has not specifically outlined in his evidence the form of unwanted conduct specifically related to the housing assistance grounds.  I further note that facts the complainant refers to in his evidence are the facts upon which submits his complaint of discrimination and victimisation which I have already found in his favour for.  I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of harassment on the housing assistance grounds and that the respondent did not engage in a prohibited act.

CA-00066991-001

I find that the complainant has established a prima facie case that he was discriminated against by the respondent on the housing assistance grounds and the respondent has not rebutted the prima facie case based on the credible evidence and I find that the respondent engaged in a prohibited act and discriminated against the complainant on the housing assistance ground and award the complainant €12,000.

CA-00066991-002

I find that the complainant has established a prima facie case that he was victimised by the respondent and the respondent has not rebutted same and I find that the respondent has engaged in a prohibited act and victimised the complainant and noting that separate awards may be made in respect of discrimination and victimisation I award the complainant €8,000.

CA-00066991-003

I find that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of harassment on the housing assistance grounds and I dismiss this element of the complainant’s complaint.

Discrimination, harassment, victimisation, housing assistance ground, respondent did not attend.