Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Olga  Burla

Sherman Chan

Representatives

Threshold

Denise Biggins, Michael Ward & Co. LLP

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00070756-001

11/04/2025

The Complainant became a tenant in a property owned by the Respondent on 24/01/2022.  Due to a change in her family circumstances in 2024 she required assistance to pay her rent.  The Complainant submits that she spoke to the Respondent who refused to take HAP payments and he also refused when she sent him a text message seeking to avail of the HAP provisions.  The Complainant submits that she was discriminated against when the Respondent refused to accept HAP payments.

The Respondent denies that he discriminated against the Complainant and believes that he adopted a fair and measured response to the many complaints of anti-social behaviour.  He issued her with a number of notices to quit.

The Complainant gave evidence on oath.  She confirmed that she became a tenant at the property owned by the Respondent on 21/01/2022.  Her rent was €1,650 per month and this was paid by means of bank transfer.  Her family circumstances changed on 25/01/2024 when she became a single parent.  This resulted in significant financial challenges as she was now the only contributor to the rent.  She sought assistance from the Local Authority who advised her to apply for the rent supplement.  On 18/04/2024 she asked the Respondent about applying for HAP and he told her during this face-to-face meeting that he did not want to accept HAP.  He told her that he wanted to sell the property.

The Complainant outlined that she continued to pay the rent and she now done this on a weekly basis. The Complainant sent the HAP application in May/June 2024 by registered post.  The Respondent is required to sign Section B but he told her that he did not want to take HAP.

The Complainant provided the hearing with copies of text messages exchanged with the Respondent.  On 23/09/2024 she contacted the Respondent seeking approval to put his email address and contact details on the HAP application as this had to be submitted on-line.  The Respondent replied that he did not want to do HAP as the value of the property would go down and he is intending to sell the property.

The Complainant gave evidence that she continued to pay the rent.  This was very difficult for her and she had to work and also take care of her children.   She asked the Respondent to accept HAP on 03/10/2024 but he refused.  The Complainant also outlined that she had received a notice to quit but this was found to be invalid.  She received a second notice.  She asked the Respondent to accept HAP again in January 2025 but he refused.

The Complainant received a valid notice to quit in January 2025 and left the property on 08/08/2025.  She stated that she is currently living in emergency accommodation.

Cross examination - the Complainant: The Complainant was cross examined by Ms Biggins on behalf of the Respondent.  The Complainant confirmed the dates of the tenancy and agreed that the early years of this were uneventful.  The Complainant agreed that the Respondent received complaints about anti-social behaviour at the property.  The Complainant also agreed that the Respondent communicated with her in relation to the various complaints that he had received.  She stated that her neighbours did not want her.  The Complainant also agreed that she was informed about the incident with her daughter and the issues arising from this.  The Complainant also agreed that there were further complaints after this.

It was put to the Complainant that she first became aware that the Respondent intented to sell the property on 12/09/2024.  She stated that she got a notice in 2023 but this was invalid.   It was put to the Complainant that the Respondent understood her position and had sympathy for her.  She agreed and confirmed that the notice she received in December 2023 and September 2024 were declared invalid by the RTB.  She received a valid notice on 29/01/2025 and she acted on this and vacated the property on 08/08/2025.  It was put to the Complainant that her rent was to be paid monthly but when her circumstances changed the Respondent was happy to facilitate her paying on a weekly basis.  She confirmed that he was happy to do so.

It was put to the Complainant that she mentioned the HAP scheme to the Respondent in May/June 2024 and she was asked if she explained the scheme to the Respondent.  She confirmed that she did.  It was put to the Complainant that she first approached the Respondent about HAP in April 2024 but she did not apply until May/June 2024 and she confirmed that she did apply then.  The Complainant also confirmed that she has vacated the property and that there were complaints since she left as she had not been able to take all her possessions.

Under redirection the Complainant confirmed that she never received a formal notice in relation to anti-social behaviour.  The Complainant confirmed that the reason her daughter was unhappy was because there was no money for some things she wanted.  The Complainant also confirmed that if she was in receipt of HAP, she would have much less stress.

Closing submission – the Complainant:

In a closing submission on behalf of the Complainant Ms Lane stated that their written submission outlined the details of the complaint and the relevant law.  She noted that if there was evidence of anti-social behaviour the Respondent could have issued a formal warning and this could have been challenged within the RTB. 

Ms Lane noted that the Respondent only mentioned that his reason for not agreeing to accept HAP was because of the anti-social complaints.  However, the Respondent stated that he used this after he had obtained legal advice.  He now wants to retrospectively apply this reason.

It is a fact that the tenancy was not registered for a period of two years.  The HAP payments can be stopped for anti-social reasons but there is no barrier or process to allow anti-social behaviour as a reason before the application is submitted.  In addition, the Respondent cannot rely on his intention to sell the property as a means to escape his obligations under the Equal Status Acts.

The Respondent’s failure to comply with the tenant’s request and his failure to accept HAP was discrimination and this had a significant impact on the Complainant in terms of stress and hardship.  Her loss as a result of this is €22,109.

The Respondent gave evidence on affirmation.   He confirmed that he was the landlord of the premises rented by the Complainant.  The Respondent stated that he received complaints from the property management company about the Complainant’s behaviour in the property.  He referred to an email dated 11/01/2023 which informed him that the management company had received reports from neighbours “in relation to excessive noises coming from your property.  Screaming, shouting and cursing going on at all hours ranging from sometimes 06.00am, all through the day and night.  Also items being thrown at walls, doors being slammed excessively and just general unacceptable behaviour”.  The Respondent stated that he received further complaints and one on 09/02/2023 outlined that “the problem has not been addressed and is becoming unbearable for the surrounding members”. 

The Complainant stated that there was a serious incident which resulted in further complaints on 25/09/2023 which involved the Complainant’s daughter.  The Complainant apologised for the actions of her teenage children.

The Respondent gave further evidence in relation to complaints received on 14/12/2023.  This complaint was about the continuation of the anti-social behaviour from his property. 

The Respondent confirmed that he issued the first notice to quit in January 2024.  His reason for doing so was that he wanted to sell the property.  He confirmed that he did not put the Complainant’s anti-social behaviour as the reason as he wanted to be fair to her and putting that reason would result in a shorter notice period.   By putting the selling of the property as a reason the Complainant would have nine months’ notice as opposed to three months for reasons of anti-social behaviour.   The Respondent agreed that this was an invalid notice as he had downloaded the wrong form from the RTB site.  The Respondent also confirmed that his second notice to quit was deemed invalid.

The Respondent confirmed that his third notice to quit still had the reason as the selling of the property.  He agreed that he could have put anti-social behaviour but he understood the difficult situation the Complainant was in and he wanted to help her.

The Respondent stated that he did not agree to the HAP system as he understood that the Local Authority would take over the property and he would have to sign a new lease with the Council.  He stated that he felt that this would undervalue his property which he wanted to sell.  He confirmed that, following legal advice, he now knows different.

The Respondent gave evidence that he wanted to be fair to the Complainant at all times.  She was in a very difficult and challenging situation and he was happy to change the rental period to weekly as that suited her.  He never put her under pressure if the rent was late or not fully paid.  The Respondent also confirmed that he never issued the Complainant with a formal notice in relation to her obligations as a tenant as she was in a difficult situation.

The Respondent stated that he was not familiar with the HAP system when the Complainant asked him.  He had no information and he was not provided with any.  He confirmed that he only found out the details of the HAP system when he obtained legal advice.

The Respondent stated that he felt that he was justified in refusing to use the HAP system as he intended to sell the property.  The Respondent confirmed that the property management company has been in touch with him since the Complainant left the property about items that she left and did not collect.

Cross examination – the Respondent:

The Respondent was initially cross examined by Mr Randall Burkhardt on behalf of the Complainant.  The Respondent was asked when he registered the tenancy with the RTB.  He confirmed that this was done in 2024.  The Respondent was asked if the failure to register the property was the reason his notice to quit was invalid.  The Respondent stated that the reason was because he had used a wrong form.

The Respondent was asked when he obtained legal advice in relation to HAP.  He confirmed that this was in September 2024 and prior to that he had no knowledge of the HAP requirements.  The Respondent also confirmed that he never served notice about anti-social behaviour on the Complainant.  The Respondent also confirmed that he never confirmed if the HAP system required a new lease.

The Respondent confirmed that there were no issues in relation to the maintenance of the property.  He also confirmed that he never spoke to anyone in the Council about the Complainant’s anti-social behaviour. 

It was put to the Respondent that the fact that the tenancy was not registered was a factor in him not accepting HAP.  The Respondent stated that he did not know what HAP involved.  The Respondent confirmed that he was aware of the Complainant’s difficulties and he told her that he would accept rent payments anyway that she wanted to pay.

The Respondent was asked about the text message from the Complainant in relation to HAP and his response.  He stated that he was confused and he thought that the property would become a council property in order to have HAP paid.  The Respondent confirmed that he had a face-to-face conversation with the Complainant in relation to HAP.  He confirmed that he had no idea about what HAP was.  He also confirmed that he did not ask the Complainant if she had any information in relation to HAP.

The Respondent was asked if he was aware that he had an obligation to accept HAP. He confirmed that at that time he had no idea what HAP was.

Under redirection the Respondent stated that he was confused about what HAP involved.  His understanding was that he would deal with the Council who would take over the property and a new tenancy agreement would be required.  The Respondent stated that if that happened, he understood that the property would be sold with the tenant still in place.

Closing submission – the Respondent:

In a closing submission on behalf of the Respondent Ms Biggins stated that the Respondent had to deal with many issues in relation to anti-social behaviour in the property he had rented to the Complainant.  He was compassionate towards her and there were no rental arrears.

The Respondent confirmed that he was a new entrant to the rental market and had no knowledge of the HAP scheme.  The Complainant was given every opportunity to better her position.  The Respondent also extended his compassion for the Complainant’s position by not putting the anti-social behaviour as the reason to quit as this would have given her a very short notice period. 

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that he did not discriminate against the Complainant.  He gave her every opportunity and there was no evidence of any financial hardship.  The Respondent was agreeable to changes in the way the rent was paid.

It is clear that the Respondent was confused in relation to HAP. He did not intentionally discriminate against the Complainant.  Section 45 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 provides in Section 45. (6) that a housing authority may refuse to provide or continue providing housing assistance if any member of the household is or has been engaged in anti-social behaviour.  The Complainant and members of her household repeatedly engaged in anti-social behaviour.  The Respondent repeatedly asked the Complainant to end the anti-social behaviour but did not do so.

The context of this complaint must be looked at by reviewing the preamble to the Equal Status Act 2000 (“the Act”) states that its purpose is,

“…to promote equality and prohibit types of discrimination, harassment and related behaviour in connection with the provision of services, property and other opportunities to which the public generally or a section of the public has access.

Section 3(1) provides, inter alia, that 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) (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘discriminatory grounds)’’ which- {….]”

Section 3(2)(g) provides that: as between any two persons, the discriminatory ground of race (h)  that they are of different race, colour, nationality or ethnic or national origins (the “ground of race”).

Section 3(3B) of the Act provides:

“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”).”

Section 38A (1) provides-

" 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."

Therefore, the Complainant must first establish a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. It is only when a prima facie case has been established that the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination.

In evaluating the evidence before me, I must first consider:

(i)                  if the complaint is properly before me and

(ii)                if the Complainant has established a prima facie case pursuant to Section 36A of the Acts.  This requires the Complainant to set out in the first instance, facts upon which she can rely on in asserting that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to her. 

It is only when such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination raised.

In relation to (i) above I find that this complaint is properly before the WRC and has been submitted within the requisite time-limits prescribed by Section 21 of the Acts, including those for giving notice of a complaint to the Respondent and referring the complaint to the WRC.  There is no dispute in relation to the ES1 form or the submission date to the WRC.

In relation to (ii) above there are three specific criteria which need to be met in order to show that a prima facie case has been established, namely:

1.       Membership of a discriminatory ground (eg, race, housing assistance). 

2.       Evidence of specific treatment by the Respondent.

3.       Evidence that the treatment received by the Complainant was less favourable that the treatment someone, not covered by the same ground(s), would have received in similar circumstances.

If and when all three of these criteria are satisfied, a prima facie case has been established and the burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent which means that the difference in treatment is assumed to be discriminatory on the relevant ground(s).  When this occurs, the Complainant does not have to prove that there is a link between the difference and membership of the ground(s), but rather it is for the Respondent to show that there is not.

The explanation provided by the Labour Court in its decision on Arturs Valpeters v Melbury Developments [2010] 21, ELR 64, which addresses the onerous nature of the burden of proof is helpful:

“This requires that the Complainant must first establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred.  What those facts are will vary from case to case and there is no closed category of facts which can be relied upon.  All that is required is that they be of sufficient significance to raise a presumption of discrimination.  However, they must be established as facts on credible evidence.  Mere speculations or assertions, unsupported by evidence, cannot be elevated to a factual basis upon which an inference of discrimination can be drawn.  Section 85A places the burden of proof fairly and squarely on the Complainant and the language of this provision admits of no exceptions to that evidential rule.”

The Complainant has submitted to the WRC that the first incident of discrimination took place on 23/09/2024 when she asked the Respondent about HAP and that the most recent date of discrimination was on 14/10/2024. 

In relation to 1 and 2 above and the allegation that the Complainant was discriminated against on the ground of housing assistance I find that the Complainant has successfully adduced evidence in relation to her allegation of discriminatory conduct by the Respondent.  The evidence adduced was that the Respondent refused on a number of occasions to accept HAP.  A text message from the Respondent to the Complainant on 23/09/2024 clearly illustrates this.  The Respondent stated:  “Hi Olga, I’m going to selling my apartment, I don’t wasn’t to do HAP, apartment with HAP the value will down very much or not easy to sell, I don’t wasn’t to take the risk.  Thanks”.

In relation to the complaint of discrimination on the ground of housing assistance I note that the Respondent had no knowledge of and was not familiar with the HAP process and had had no previous dealings with HAP.  The Respondent in his evidence stated that he understood that the HAP property would be taken over by the Local Authority and a new lease would have to be put in place.  The Respondent did not have any knowledge of the rental market when he let his property.  However, The legal principle "ignorance of the law is no excuse" (ignorantia juris non excusat) means that individuals, including the Respondent in this case,  are expected to be aware of the laws that apply to them and cannot avoid legal consequences by claiming they were unaware of the law.

I found the Complainant’s evidence to be credible and cogent, and she produced supporting documentation, in support of her oral evidence, at the hearing.  I accept the Complainant’s evidence that she made a number of efforts to get the Respondent to engage with the HAP process.

The Respondent’s position, namely that his concern regarding complaints of anti-social behaviour prompted him to adopt a sympathetic approach towards the Complainant, may be acknowledged as well-intentioned. Nevertheless, such considerations cannot be elevated so as to constitute a justification for his refusal to engage with the HAP process.

Having considered the totality of the evidence in this case I find that the Complainant has established a prima facia case in relation to the complaint in relation to the ground of housing assistance.  I find, on the balance of probabilities, that the Complainant was discriminated against, by the Respondent. I find that discrimination took the form of refusal to accept the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) scheme), which is a breach of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended). The Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) is a remedial social statute.

I further find that this resulted in hardship for the Complainant given the significant change in her family circumstances.

I note that any award I grant must be effective, persuasive and dissuasive, in line with European law principles, in this area.

Pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, and based on the evidence presented, I find that the Complainant experienced discrimination on the basis of housing assistance, contravening sections 3 and 6 of the Act. Regarding remedies, Section 27(2) of the Act restricts the potential award to €15,000, the maximum allowable by the District Court.

The Complainant has suffered an actual financial loss as a result of the Respondent’s ongoing refusal to participate in the HAP Scheme. In respect of redress, section 27(2) of the Equal Status Act has fixed any potential award at €15,000 which is the maximum that may be awarded by the District Court.

I have concluded my investigation of this complaint and based upon the aforesaid, I find pursuant to section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case of direct discrimination on the housing assistance ground contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. I decide that the complaint is therefore well-founded.

As well as the financial loss that the Complainant had to incur arising from the Respondent’s failure to accept HAP, I have noted the stress that this has caused her. I have also taken this into account in the calculation of my award. Having regard to all the circumstances and pursuant to Section 27(1)(a) of the Equal Status Act, I therefore deem it appropriate to order the Respondent to pay €15,000 to the Complainant in compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct.

For the reasons given above I find the Respondent did discriminate against the Complainant on the housing ground.

I have decided that this complaint is well-founded and I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation of €15,000 within 42 days of the date of this decision.

Housing assistance.