Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Agnieszka  Nowakowska

Dillon Marshall Property Consultant ( No appearance)

Representatives

Self

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00073024-001

01/07/2025

The Complainant alleges that she was discriminated against on the housing assistance ground in relation to denying her access to the on-site gym.

The Complainant moved into an apartment in a complex with multiple blocks. She was in block 5. Block 5 was designated the social housing block. There are 38 apartments in that block.  She wanted to use the gym which is situated on the complex.  She asked security on the property how she could get into the gym. He said that she could not because she was in block 5, the social housing block. The Respondent is the management company for the property and the complex. She emailed them requesting access to the gym. They ignored her email. She checked the email address on the website to make sure that it was correct. It was. She also sent a letter to them.  She did register the letter so she knows that they got. They did not respond to that either. She spoke to the company who placed her in the apartment to get more information about  the management company. All her efforts to gain access to the gym or to get information about what she had to do to get access to it have failed to date. She see lots of other people from other blocks using the gym . They all seem to have a fob which they use to gain access to it.

There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Respondent.

There was no appearance for or on behalf of the Respondent today. The Respondent did correspond with the WRC requesting a postponement of the case however they were informed that any such application would have to be made to the adjudication officer. It is on that basis that I am satisfied that they were on notice of the date, time and venue for the hearing.

The sole issue for determination of this complaint is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant under the ‘housing assistance ground’ contrary to Sections 3 and 6 of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended). 

In relation to the applicable burden of proof, Section 38A of the Acts applies to all complaints of discrimination under the Equal Status Acts and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination alleged may be inferred.  It is only where such a prima facie case has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut the inference of discrimination.

Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 (as amended) has to be read and interpreted in conjunction with Section 3 of the Act which gives meaning to ‘discrimination’ in general across a broad spectrum of grounds and defines the  ‘housing assistance ground’.  Specifically, Section 3(1) 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(1)(b) provides for discrimination by association and Section 3(1)(c) provides for indirect discrimination.  Section 3(2) lists the protected grounds and identifies the respective comparators for each ground.  Section 3(3B) provides that discrimination in relation to Section 6(1)(c), namely providing accommodation as set out above, is prohibited under all of the existing protected grounds and inserts the new ‘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”).” 

I must consider whether the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination.  This requires her to show that he had 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 (construed in accordance with Part 4 of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014)… and the other is not.” 

The Complainant resides in a residential complex comprising of several apartment blocks. She was allocated accommodation in Block 5, which is designated for social housing tenants. Shortly after moving into the complex, she asked the on-site security guard how she could access the gym facilities. She was informed that residents of Block 5 were not permitted to use the gym.

The Complainant was distressed by this information and subsequently contacted the Respondent by email and by registered post seeking clarification. The Respondent failed, refused, or neglected to respond to her correspondence.

The Complainant observed numerous residents from other blocks accessing the gym using electronic fobs. She was unaware whether those residents paid to use the gym on a per-visit basis or whether access formed part of their management fees. Regardless of the payment arrangements, the evidence before me is that the Complainant was denied the opportunity to access the gym solely because she resided in the block designated for tenants in receipt of the Housing Assistance Payment.

I am satisfied that denying the Complainant the opportunity to access the gym on the basis that she resided in the block designated for Housing Assistance Payment tenants constitutes discrimination. She should have been afforded the same opportunity to access and use the gym facilities as any other tenant residing within the complex.

The Complainant has established a prima facia case of discrimination on the Housing assistance ground. In all of the circumstances I am awarding the Complainant €2,500.00.

The complaint is well founded. I aware the Complainant €2,500.00

Discrimination. HAP. Less favourable treatment