Complainant

Respondent

Parties

William  Gallagher

Jenny Brennan and Matthew Hannigan

Representatives

Anna Sheehan The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

 Jenny Brennan

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00070617-001

07/04/2025

At all material times the Complainant was a tenant and the Respondents were landlords. 

The Complainant relied on the narrative set out in the WRC complaint forms and the written submissions furnished to the WRC on his behalf in advance of the hearing, which was supplemented by oral evidence. The evidence adduced by the Complainant was challenged as appropriate by the Respondents.

The Complainant alleged discrimination on the housing assistance ground since the 3rd January 2024 when he requested that the Respondents complete and sign the landlord section of the HAP application form. The Complainant denied that during the course of a telephone call with the First Named Respondent on the 3rd January 2024 he agreed not to pursue his application for HAP or that during the said telephone call the First Named Respondent advised him that the Respondents were selling the Property.

The Complainant further alleged that the service of three notices of termination, the first signed by both Respondents and the latter two signed by the Second Named Respondent only, amounted to discrimination and victimisation on the basis that the Respondents would not have issued the said notices of termination when they did had the Complainant not requested that the Respondents complete the HAP application form or had he not sent ES1 forms to the Respondents or referred complaints to the WRC due to the Respondents delay and failure to sign the HAP application form.

The Complainant gave evidence of the significant financial and personal strain caused by the Respondents refusal and/or delay to complete the landlord section of the HAP application form and the financial difficulty he faced trying to make his rent payments on a monthly basis.

The Complainant qualified for a monthly HAP contribution from Kildare County Council to the sum of €1,012 of his €1,300 rent payable to the Respondents.  

The Complainant confirmed that after 15 months the Respondents completed Part B of the HAP application form and since the 28th April 2025 he has been in receipt of HAP.

The Respondents were represented by the First Named Respondent at the hearings who furnished documentation to the WRC in advance of the hearings. I heard from the First Named Respondent and the Second Named Respondent and the evidence adduced by them was challenged as appropriate by the Complainant’s Representative.

The Respondents denied that they discriminated or victimised the Complainant. They stated that the landlord section of the HAP application form was not completed by the Respondents because the First Named Respondent and the Complainant had an agreement following a telephone conversation on the 3rd January 2024 that the Complainant would not pursue his application for HAP because the Respondents intended selling the Property.

The Respondents stated that it was always their intention to sell the Property. The First Named Respondent referred on a number occasions to an email of the 18th May 2023 from her to a financial institution as evidencing the Respondents intention to sell the Property at the material time. The Respondents accepted that as of September 2025 the Property had not been sold.

On a number of occasions the Respondents referred to personal issues which were ongoing during the material time and they stated that the personal issues were the reason for their failure to engage with the Complainant’s request to complete the landlord section of the HAP application form.

Under cross-examination the Respondents denied that the hearing was the first occasion on which it was alleged that there was an agreement between the First Named Respondent and the Complainant not to complete the HAP application form. It was accepted by the Respondents that the ES2 Form sent to the Complainant around the 19th June 2024 made no reference to an agreement reached on the 3rd January 2024 not to complete the HAP application form or pursue HAP and that it made no reference to an intention on the part of the Respondents to sell the Property. It was accepted that the First Named Respondent stated on the ES2 Form that “I clearly advised the tenant that we were currently selling our other property and that I would look into his request in due course” and that the reason the HAP application forms were not completed was because the Respondents were “selling our other property, personal issues also – mum – knee replacement dad-stroke, mother-in-law cancer.”

The Second Named Respondent stated that he left all matters relating to the Property to the First Named Respondent to deal with and that she was capable of doing so. The First Named Respondent accepted that she did not sign the HAP applications forms when she was asked to do so.  She stated that due to personal reasons she could not deal with the requests at the time they were made as she was not in the right frame of mind.

The First Named Respondent denied that she ever refused to complete the HAP application form and in this regard she made reference to an email sent by her to the WRC and the Complainant’s Representative in December 2024. When questioned on the matter she accepted that she stated in the email that up until that point she had not completed the HAP application form because she had “more valid things to focus on”.

The First Named Respondent stated she completed Part B of the HAP application form and submitted it to Kildare County Council some time in February 2025.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted in advance of the hearing, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing and the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties.

I am required to determine whether the Respondents have acted as alleged by the Complainant and, if so finding, whether their actions constitute discrimination under the housing assistance ground and victimisation. 

In this respect, it is firstly necessary to set out the relevant legislation as follows:

Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2000 Act”) provides: 

“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.”  

Section 6(1) of the 2000 Act has to be read and interpreted in conjunction with section 3 of the 2000 Act which gives meaning to “discrimination” across ten grounds including the “housing assistance ground”. 

Specifically, section 3(1) of the 2000 Act provides: 

“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,” 

Section 3(3B) of the 2000 Act provides that in addition to the existing prohibition of discrimination in relation to the provision of accommodation under the nine protected grounds, discrimination is prohibited under 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”).”  

It is well settled law that the aforesaid provisions apply to both prospective and existing tenants.

Section 3(2)(j) of the 2000 Act affords protection to persons seeking to enforce their rights under the 2000 Act against retaliatory action, constituting the “victimisation ground” as follows: 

“3(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 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”).  

The criteria to be satisfied for such a complaint was outlined in the Equality Tribunal Decision in Bridget Collins v. Campions Public House DEC-S2003-071 as follows:

(1) That he/she applied in good faith for redress under the Act, indicated an intention to do so or otherwise satisfied section 3(2)(j);

(2) That he/she was subjected to specific acts of treatment by the respondent after he/she did so and

(3) That this treatment was less favourable than would have been afforded to a person in similar circumstances who had not taken the action at 1 above.

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. 

I am satisfied that all the jurisdictional prerequisites including notification have been met in this case and that the Respondents are correctly named. 

Section 3(3B) of the 2000 Act clearly imposes a legal obligation on landlords to accept recipients of housing assistance payments as tenants (subject to statutory exceptions) and intrinsic to that, to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that they can access the housing assistance payments to which they are entitled. 

Turning to the factual matrix, it was common case that the Complainant was the tenant and the Respondents were the landlords. On the 6th December 2023 he was approved as eligible for housing assistance payment (hereinafter referred to as “HAP”) by Kildare County Council. In or around the 1st or 2nd of January 2024 he posted the relevant HAP application form to the First Named Respondent for completion. On the 3rd January 2024 the Complainant sent a WhatsApp message to the First Named Respondent explaining that he had posted documents to her for completion. Whilst he referred to rent supplement in the message he gave credible evidence that the reference to rent supplement was an error and that the First Named Respondent would have been aware that the form was a HAP application form because following receipt of the said form she sent a WhatsApp message to the Complainant stating “Can I just check. This is mentioning the HAP Scheme?” Initially the First Named Respondent replied via WhatsApp to state that she would sign the forms however she sent a further message wherein she stated “Sorry Will I had them almost completely filled out when I noticed what they were for.” Under cross-examination the First Named Respondent confirmed that she was aware at the time of receipt in January 2024 that the application form sent to her by the Complainant was a HAP application form.

It was common case that on the 3rd January 2024 the Complainant and the First Named Respondent spoke on the telephone however there was a conflict of evidence on the issue of there being an agreement not to sign the HAP application form. The First Named Respondent stated that during the telephone call herself and the Complainant agreed that there was no point in the Respondents completing the landlord section of the HAP application form or the Complainant seeking HAP given the Respondents’ intention to sell the Property. This evidence however was at odds with the position adopted by the Respondents in the correspondence provided to the WRC and in their oral evidence at hearings. The Complainant denied that during the course of the telephone call on the 3rd January 2024 he was informed by the First Named Respondent that the Respondents were selling the Property and he denied that he had an agreement with the First Named Respondent not to complete the HAP application form or pursue HAP any further because the Respondents were selling the Property. Following the telephone conversation on the 3rd January 2024 there was a prolonged pattern of behaviour on the part of the Complainant consistent with his version of events and on the balance of probabilities I find it to be the more credible of the two.

Once a request has been made to a landlord to complete Part B of the HAP application form, as occurred in the instant case, the landlord is required to take steps to comply with the request. I am satisfied that the Respondents’ failure to complete Part B of the HAP application form when requested to do so resulted in the Complainant’s application for HAP being returned to him by Kildare County Council, and that for a 15-month period when he was entitled to HAP he did not receive it. As a consequence, he was unable to avail of HAP towards payment of his rent.  I found him to be a very credible witness and his account was corroborated by the documentation provided. 

It is evident from a consideration of the documentation provided that the Complainant qualified for a monthly HAP contribution from Kildare County Council in the amount of €1,012 (out of the €1,300 rent payable to the Respondents per month). As a result of the Respondents’ failure to complete and sign the HAP application form the Complainant suffered a quantifiable financial loss of approximately €15,180 on rent paid to the Respondents which would have been covered by HAP contributions if his application had not been unlawfully delayed by the Respondents’ initial refusal and thereafter their delay in the completion of the required forms.

I found the Complainant’s account of the conduct by the Respondents towards him to be wholly credible as corroborated by documentation and having so found, I am satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination.  I find that he has been treated “less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the grounds”, in this case the ‘housing assistance ground’, “…which requires that as between any two persons, that one is in receipt of housing assistance and the other is not.”  In this respect, I find that the Respondents’ refusal and/or delays in completing/signing 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 Respondents’ conduct led to the Complainant being placed in a financially precarious position when it was entirely unnecessary given he was deemed eligible for HAP in December 2023.

I am further satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Respondents’ conduct towards the Complainant after he sought to enforce his rights under the 2000 Act constitutes a prima facie case of victimisation.  The ES1 Form is a non-statutory form used to give a potential respondent notice of an intended claim and afford an opportunity to explain the reasons for the alleged impugned conduct.  This is a statutory prerequisite to referral of a complaint to the WRC (subject to dispensing of same in exceptional circumstances) under section 21(2) of the 2000 Act.  Albeit that such written notice may be given in any form, the ES1 Forms used in the instant case are headed: IMPORTANT: This document warns of a possible legal claim.” I am satisfied that this constitutes “notice of an intention to take any of the actions specified in subparagraphs (i) to (iv),” . The Complainant referred three complaints to the WRC using the WRC Complainant Form and I am satisfied that he “has in good faith applied for any determination or redress provided for in Part II and III”. I therefore find that his case falls under section 3(2)(j)(v) and (i) of the 2000 Act.  I find the Complainant’s evidence that after service of the ES1 Forms on the Respondents there was an escalation of negative and unlawful conduct towards him to be entirely credible.  This included the service of three notices of termination (the first one sent within 8 days of the First Named Respondent receiving the first ES1 Form), accusations being levelled against the Complainant that he was causing the First Named Respondent stress owing to the bringing of the complaints whilst the Respondents were experiencing personal difficulties, and instances of unfounded accusations being made against him that he was in breach of his tenancy agreement and which were communicated to third parties which caused him shame, stress and embarrassment. In this respect, I find that he was subjected to specific acts of treatment by the Respondents after he served the ES1 Forms and referred his complaints to the WRC and that such treatment was less favourable than would have been afforded to a person in similar circumstances who had not taken such action.  Accordingly, the legal test set out above has been satisfied.

Taking into consideration the evidence of the parties and the documentation furnished to the WRC I find that the Complainant has established facts from which it may be presumed that prohibited conducted occurred in relation to him and the Respondents have failed to prove the contrary.

Decision - Discrimination under the 2000 Act:

Section 25 of the 2000 Act requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaints of discrimination, and if finding in favour of the Complainant, do so in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of the 2000 Act which provides as follows:

“Subject to this section, the types of redress for which a decision of the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission under section 25 may provide are either or both of the following as may be appropriate in the circumstances:  (a) an order for compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned; or (b) an order that a person or persons specified in the order take a course of action which is so specified.  (2) The maximum amount which may be ordered by the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission by way of compensation under subsection (1)(a) shall be the maximum amount that could be awarded by the District Court in civil cases in contract.  (3) The maximum amount specified in subsection (2) applies notwithstanding that conduct the subject of the investigation constituted-(a) discrimination on more than one of the discriminatory grounds (other than the victimisation ground), or(b) both discrimination on one or more than one of those grounds (other than the victimisation ground) and harassment or sexual harassment.”

Given the real and tangible effects of the Respondents’ refusal and delay to complete/sign the HAP application form I consider this discrimination to be at the more serious end of the scale.  By definition, recipients of housing assistance payments are more vulnerable and I find the Complainant’s evidence of the financial and personal impact that the Respondents failure to complete the HAP application form had on him to be credible. The Respondents’ refusal to complete also occurred over a lengthy period.  This has been aggravated by the Respondent’s conduct towards the Complainant as evidenced in the documentation furnished by the parties to the WRC.

Subject to EU law exceptions, by virtue of section 27(2) of the 2000 Act, the jurisdiction to award compensation is limited to a maximum award of €15,000, being fixed at the maximum District Court civil jurisdiction (noting that separate awards of up to the maximum may be made in respect of discrimination and victimisation).  Having regard to all the circumstances and pursuant to section 27(1)(a), I deem it appropriate to order the Respondent to pay €15,000 to the Complainant for the effects of the discrimination.  

Decision – Victimisation under the 2000 Act:

In relation to the investigation of a complaint of discrimination along with a related complaint of victimisation under the 2000 Act as arises in the instant case, section 25(1A) provides as follows:

“(a) Claims to have been discriminated against on more than one of the discriminatory grounds (other than the victimisation ground) shall be investigated as a single case, and (b) claims to have been discriminated against on discriminatory grounds which include the victimisation ground may, in an appropriate case, be so investigated, but a decision shall be made on each of the claims.”

Having regard to all the circumstances and pursuant to section 25(1A) of the 2000 Act requiring a separate decision, I deem it appropriate to order the Respondents to pay a further €8,000 to the Complainant for the effects of victimisation arising from the conduct towards the Complainant following service of ES1 Forms and the referral of the complaints of discrimination to the WRC.

Overall Award:

For the avoidance of any doubt, I direct that the Respondents pay the total sum of €23,000 in compensation to the Complainant to reflect the seriousness of the discrimination and the victimisation and the effects of same on the Complainant.

For the reasons set out above, I direct that the Respondents pay the total sum of €23,000 in compensation to the Complainant to reflect the seriousness of the discrimination and the victimisation and the effects of same on the Complainant.