Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Aurimas  Evstifejevas

Stephen Vincent

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00067563-001

21/11/2024

The Complainant was a tenant of the Respondent landlord from 2021 until he was evicted in July 2024 after missing rent payments. The Complainant had sought to have the landlord sign forms to accept HAP payments on a number of occasions.

The Complainant has alleged discrimination on the basis of his receiving an housing assistance payment.

 The Complainant attended the hearing and gave evidence under affirmation and made oral and written submissions. He was discriminated against by the landlord who refused to sign his HAP forms despite his qualifying for the scheme. This resulted in a significant financial loss and when he couldn’t pay the rent anymore he was evicted.

The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The Complainant confirmed that the address the hearing notice was sent to was the address he rented out which was a separate unit adjoining the Respondent’s house. 

After the hearing the Respondent got in touch with the WRC by email seeking further information. The WRC emailed the Respondent notifying him that a hearing had taken place and affording him the opportunity to request a resumed hearing. He did not reply to this email.

The Law

Section 5(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000  (“ESA”) prohibits discrimination in the provision of services.

Section 6(1) of the ESA (as amended by the Equality Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2015, provides that:

A person shall not discriminate in:

(a)    Disposing of any estate or interest in premises

(b)    Terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises

(c)   Subject to 1(a) providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities

This case has raised an issue regarding “the Housing Assistance Ground” set out in Section 3(3)(b) of the ESA.

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 3 of this Act addresses the provisions of Prohibited Conduct.

 (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,

Findings

The Complainant submitted the complaint to the WRC on 21st of November 2024.

His unchallenged evidence was that he had asked for rent supplement three times and each time it was refused. The Complainant suspected the property didn’t meet minimum standards for tenancies.

He had qualified for HAP and due to the Landlord’s refusal to accept the payment he believes he missed out on about €27,000 in rent subsidies. 

The Complainant made the request again on the 23rd of May 2024 and then follow up with an ES1 which he posted through the landlord’s door four days later. The Complainant showed a video in the hearing of him handing the document through a letter box and referred to a text message confirming same later that day.

The Complainant’s evidence was that the landlord ignored the request. In July the Complainant couldn’t meet rent payments. He served notice of termination on the 14th and said on the notice he had until the 19th to be gone. On the 23rd came with two men threw out his property on the curb side.

The Complainant’s evidence was that he was homeless for two months some of which he spent living in a tent.

Conclusion and Redress

The Complainant has established that he was discriminated against by the Respondent landlord in their refusal to engage with the HAP process and that this resulted in a significant loss financial loss to the Complainant and ultimately caused their homelessness.

Section 27 of the ESA provides that I can make an order for compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned subject to a maximum award of €15,000.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that the maximum award is appropriate.

I find that the complaint is well founded and direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant €15,000 in compensation.