Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Gillian Davis

Peter McVerry Trust

Representatives

Represented herself

Feidhlím Mac Róibín, McInnes Dunne Murphy LLP

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00067928-001

03/12/2024

The complainant gave evidence at the hearing.  She said that she is employed as a clerical officer in the civil service and that she and her husband are on Dublin City Council’s housing list.  They have a child who was born in March 2022.  The complainant has been out of work due to depression since December 2024.  Her complaint is that she and her husband have been discriminated against on the grounds of their civil status and family status.  At the commencement of the hearing, she asked me to include a complaint of discrimination on the disability ground.

The complainant said that she and her husband were homeless for 17 months and they lived in five different places in emergency accommodation.  In August 2023, she said that she and her husband were nominated by Dublin City Council to be housed by the respondent, the Peter McVerry Trust.  The complainant said that they were delighted and they went to view an apartment in North King Street.  The complainant said that the property was newly decorated and that the appliances, beds and furniture were all new.  They signed a lease on the apartment and moved in.  When they met the team leader, Ms MacAuley at the property, the complainant said that they told her about their history and they were offered counselling, which they accepted.

In December 2023, the complainant said that the tenant next door was playing music all night and they couldn’t sleep and their child couldn’t sleep with the noise.  They made a complaint to the respondent’s housing officer, Ms Fetherston.

Three days later, around 2.00am on a Saturday evening / Sunday morning, the complainant said that the tenant that they complained about started throwing things at the wall adjoining their apartment.    They could hear him screaming that he was going to kill them.  The complainant said that he threatened to rape her and to kill her child.  The next-door tenant then went out onto the balcony of his apartment and tried to get into their apartment.

The complainant said that she phoned the Gardaí and she and her husband got dressed and got their child out of bed.  They went down the stairs of the property and were met by the tenant in the hallway brandishing a knife.  The complainant said that the tenant screamed at them, “I am an animal!”  He caught Mr Davis in a headlock.  Mr Davis defended himself with a handrail from their child’s pram.

When they were out on the street, a neighbouring couple brought the complainant and her husband and child into their apartment, where they stayed for two nights.

The complainant said that one of the conditions of a tenancy with the respondent is confidentiality.  She said that the tenant next door should not have been told that she complained about him, and that this put her family at risk of injury or even death.  The tenant has been charged with a criminal offence and the complainant and her husband have been summoned to give evidence at a court hearing in November this year.

When they were staying with the couple who lived near the apartment that they vacated, the complainant said that she contacted the head of services about alternative accommodation.  The head of services said that they could go back to their apartment, but the complainant said that this was impossible, because she was afraid that the tenant next door might come back or that he might send his friends to attack them.  The head of services offered them emergency accommodation in a guest house, which they refused because they had been there previously and it was dirty.

On December 11th 2023, the complainant said that she and her husband met the housing officer at a property in Glasnevin.  She said that she signed a tenancy licence for one week, until December 18th.  She said that they property wasn’t in good condition, and that, when she put money in the gas meter, the money was used up paying a previous debt.  There was no crockery and the fridge was dirty.  There was a broken glass table and the beds were dirty.

On December 19th, the complainant said that she sent a message to the housing officer and the team leader, but she was informed that there was no update about a move to different accommodation.  The complainant and her husband stayed in the property until the new year.  The complainant went to Dublin City Council’s Housing Section in January 2024.  They were on the record there as living in the apartment in North King Street.  They were informed that they were no longer on the housing list because they had been housed by the Peter McVerry Trust.

In January 2024, the complainant said that she suffered an injury when she tripped on a loose piece of carpet in the Glasnevin property.

In March 2024, the complainant said that she and her husband were given the option of returning to the apartment in North King Street or remaining in the property in Glasnevin.  She said that the prospect of returning to North King Street was frightening, so they remained in Glasnevin.

The complainant didn’t pay rent on the property in Glasnevin because she thought that they were there on a temporary basis.  In August 2024, the housing officer asked her to pay arrears going back to December 2023.  The couple were facing eviction if they didn’t pay the rent.

The complainant said that she had been advised to cancel the payment of the rent on the property in North King Street, and she didn’t see why she had to pay rent in a property that wasn’t clean and that needed to be fixed.  In August 2024, they started paying rent of €37.00 per week plus arrears of €10.00 per week until the rent from December 2023 to July 2024 is paid off. 

Also in August 2024, the complainant said that she was expecting another baby and she went back to Dublin City Council to enquire about alternative housing.  She was advised that she could go back to emergency accommodation.  In October, the complainant said that she had a miscarriage. 

It is the complainant’s case that, compared to a person who is not married, or a couple that has no children, her family has been treated less favourably, by not being provided with refurbished and clean accommodation.  She said that an elderly woman leaves near them in Peter McVerry accommodation, and her house was done up before she moved in.  She compared her family’s situation to a Romanian family with children who moved into a Peter McVerry home, which, she said was in good condition.  She referred also to an empty property from which the furniture was removed before new people could move in.

For the respondent, Mr Mac Róibín said that, when an offer of accommodation is accepted, Dublin City Council considers the tenants as housed.  When the complainant and her husband accepted the offer of the apartment in North King Street, the council removed them from the housing list.

Having decided that they didn’t want to return to North King Street, on October 15th 2024, Mr Mac Róibín said that the complainant and her husband signed a tenancy agreement for the property in Glasnevin.

Mr Mac Róibín submitted that the complainant has not identified a comparator who has been treated more favourably compared to her and he asked me to find that her complaints of discrimination are not well founded.

Having listened to the complainant and her husband outlining their problems with the Glasnevin property, I asked the managers who attended the hearing how they think the issues could be resolved.  Ms MacAuley said that she would work with the complainant to apply for a grant from a community welfare officer to replace any old or broken appliances or furniture.  The service officer, Mr Brennan explained that the organisation hasn’t got the funds that were available to them previously, and they can’t refurbish every property before a tenant moves in.  He said that an additional needs payment may be available from the Department of Social Protection.  He said that he would meet the complainant and her husband at the property and discuss with them what needs to be repaired or replaced and that he would ensure that the property is maintained to a reasonable standard. 

I agree with Mr Mac Róibín that, on the basic facts, the complainant has not shown that she was discriminated against.  The complainant referred to a comparator, who is in the same circumstances as she is, a family with children, and she said that this family was provided with a clean place to live and with new furniture.  This comparator demonstrates that the respondent does not treat families less favourably compared to others.

At the conclusion of the hearing, I explained to the complainant that it was my view that the concerns she raised do not come under the heading of discrimination.  She described a sense of being treated unfairly, by not being provided with accommodation that, similar to the North King Street apartment, was newly refurbished, with new furniture and beds. 

It is my view that the issues raised by the complainant can be addressed with some dialogue and co-operation and that the referral of this matter to the WRC is not a suitable way for the problem to be resolved.  I am confident that, with the support of the housing officer, the team leader and the service officer, and, with clear communication and openness on the part of everyone involved, the accommodation in Glasnevin will be brought up to an acceptable standard.

Having considered the complainant’s evidence, I am not satisfied that she has shown that she was discriminated against and I decide therefore, that her complaint of discrimination is not well founded and that the issues she complained about can be resolved between the parties.

Grievance, tenancy, discrimination