Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Tenant

A Landlord

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-00070640-001

08/04/2025

The Complainant was a tenant of the Respondent landlord for approximately 6 months. He alleges that he was discriminated on the basis of housing assistance.

Complainant attended the hearing and provided evidence under oath.

He was first put on housing list around 2022 when he been out of work. In July 2024 he became a tenant of the landlord in a house share while he was studying for a  masters and working part-time. The rent was €600 per month plus bills which were paid through the landlord.

He was still liaising with homeless services who said he’d still be eligible. HAP sent the forms for him to fill out and give to the landlord. He first requested HAP from the Landlord at the end of July. The Landlord refused and the Complainant fell into rent arrears and was later evicted after he continued to bring up the HAP.

The Respondent provided evidence under affirmation. While he believed he could not facilitate the HAP scheme he tried to be fair to the Complainant and offer a reduced rent and an alternative room instead.

Section 5(1) of the Equal Status Acts (“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,

The Respondent has accepted that they refused to facilitate the Complainant’s receipt of HAP. The Respondent owned another property which was HAP approved and had concerns whether HAP would trigger a building inspection which would force him to cease renting the property the Complainant resided at. The Respondent offered a room in his other property to the Complainant when it became available and that he could have availed of HAP in that room.

The Respondent’s action in refusing the HAP request does constitute discrimination as provided by the act.

The Respondent’s evidence is that they offered to reduce the Complainant’s rent down to €300 and that this would be in line with his contribution and top up payment under the HAP scheme. This was agreed on the 19th of November. On the 24th of November there was an incident outside the house involving the Complainant and there had already been a number of complaints raised by the other tenants. The Respondent decided to terminate the tenancy at this point and the Complainant ceased paying rent and bills until he left the house in February 2025. The Respondent held the deposit but is still owed arrears.

The Complainant disputes the Respondent’s evidence and alleges that the tenancy was terminated on the 24th of November due to his having raised HAP again. He alleges that the reduced rent was agreed at that point on the basis he would leave the house.

I generally prefer the evidence of the Respondent. The Complainant in the course of his evidence contradicted himself a number of times and his payments to the landlord show that he was paying the reduced rent rate before the 24th of November despite his evidence that the rate was agreed at that point.

I find that the Complainant was refused HAP but that this did not result in a financial loss to him as he was offered a lower rent on a comparable level to his HAP contribution and top up rates and then ceased paying that rent and bills. Even accounting for the full rent he paid for July to October 2024 he does not appear to be at a loss financially. I find he was evicted for reasons other than the request for HAP.

Section 27 of the ESA provides that I can make an order for compensation for the effects of the prohibited conduct concerned. As outlined above the Complainant did not suffer any financial loss arising from the prohibited conduct.

Having regard to all the circumstances and I am of the view that no award of compensation is appropriate.

I find that the complaint is well founded. I do not direct the Respondent to make any payment to the Complainant.