Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Kristen  Cavanagh

John Delahunty

Representatives

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00073625-001

21/07/2025

This Complaint was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to the Equal Status Acts 2000–2018 (“the Acts”) It concerns an allegation that the Respondent, the Complainant’s landlord, discriminated against her on the Housing Assistance ground by failing and refusing to cooperate with her efforts to access Housing Assistance Payment (“HAP”) and Rent Supplement support during the course of her tenancy.

 The Respondent denied discriminating against the Complainant and maintained that he had no objection to her receiving HAP. He contended that any delays arose from personal circumstances, including the illness and subsequent death of his wife, administrative difficulties, and issues concerning inspections and repairs to the property, rather than any deliberate refusal to cooperate with the Complainant’s applications.

The Complainant submitted that she commenced her tenancy in December 2021. Prior to moving into the property, she was informed that HAP would not immediately be accepted but was verbally assured by the Respondent that HAP would be facilitated from August 2022 onwards. The Complainant stated that when she subsequently attempted to pursue a HAP application, she encountered repeated delays, non-responses, changing explanations and failures by the Respondent to provide the documentation required by the relevant authorities.

The Complainant produced a detailed timeline documenting her efforts to secure the Respondent’s cooperation. Below is a summary of the noteworthy events as relayed in the Complainant’s evidence:

In April 2022 she sought clarification regarding HAP eligibility and the steps required to progress an application. No substantive response was received.

In May 2022, the Respondent indicated he would enquire about HAP in August of that year. The Complainant explained that a revised tenancy agreement would be required for the application process. No meaningful progress followed.

During 2022 and 2023 the Complainant repeatedly sought updated tenancy documentation and information required for housing support purposes. Numerous requests either went unanswered or were deferred.

The Complainant gave evidence that matters became financially critical in September 2024 when she became solely responsible for the rent following the departure of her partner from the tenancy. She submitted a HAP application at that time and was informed that the only outstanding element was completion of the landlord section.

The documentary evidence as exhibited, showed repeated attempts by the Complainant to obtain the Respondent’s cooperation. On 5 February 2025 she again contacted the Respondent seeking confirmation that the HAP documentation had been completed. The Respondent replied that he was abroad and would do his best to deal with the matter. On 4 March 2025 she followed up again and was informed that the Respondent had not yet contacted HAP.

The Complainant’s first HAP application was ultimately rejected on 9 April 2025 because the landlord documentation section had not been completed. Thereafter the Complainant attempted to pursue Rent Supplement as an alternative means of support. On 16 May 2025 she urgently requested that the Respondent complete the necessary forms. She offered to travel to meet him personally and sought to facilitate matters in every conceivable way. No response was received.

Having exhausted informal efforts, the Complainant sought assistance from Threshold, Citizens Information, the Residential Tenancies Board, HAP personnel, social welfare officials, and Cork County Council. The evidence demonstrates that multiple third parties became involved in attempting to secure the Respondent’s cooperation.

On 3 June 2025, the Complainant sent a detailed email to the Respondent regarding both housing support documentation and repair issues. The Respondent replied that an accountant or agent should have been dealing with the matter. The Complainant was repeatedly informed that the matter was being dealt with by accountants, agents, or solicitors, notwithstanding that the documentation required the Respondent’s own cooperation.

On 18 June 2025, the Complainant served an ES.1 notification under the Equal Status Acts. By this stage she had also commenced RTB proceedings and sought further intervention from Threshold.

In July 2025, the Respondent attended the property and indicated that the required forms had been left in another vehicle and would be posted. This did not occur. Subsequently the Complainant was informed that the forms were with the Respondent’s solicitor. The solicitor later contacted the Complainant expressing confusion as to why the forms had been sent to him and indicating that there was no legal necessity for his involvement in their completion. The Complainant gave evidence that forms eventually returned to her contained incorrect information, including an incorrect rent figure, and omitted required supporting documentation. She immediately notified the Respondent of these deficiencies but received no substantive response.

The Complainant continued her efforts throughout September and October 2025. She repeatedly contacted both the Respondent and HAP personnel. Her evidence was that Mr. Finbar Walsh of HAP attempted to engage with the Respondent but was unable to obtain the necessary cooperation.

A second HAP application was rejected on 16 October 2025. The reason recorded was again the failure to provide the required landlord documentation. The Complainant further submitted that the Respondent subsequently linked completion of HAP-related documentation to other matters, including repairs to the property. She contended that there was no lawful basis for withholding cooperation with HAP pending resolution of unrelated issues.

The Complainant described the significant consequences of the Respondent’s conduct. She was required to pay the entirety of the rent without assistance. Her savings were depleted. She was forced to take on additional employment. She experienced difficulty financing a replacement vehicle. She encountered significant stress while pursuing a degree programme and ultimately had to defer part of her studies. She described considerable anxiety and distress arising from her inability to access supports for which she was otherwise eligible.

The Respondent denied discriminating against the Complainant.

He stated that he had no objection in principle to the Complainant receiving HAP and maintained that he had always intended to cooperate. He submitted that personal circumstances, including the illness and subsequent death of his wife, had affected his ability to deal with administrative matters during the relevant period. The Respondent stated that he was unfamiliar with certain aspects of the documentation process and that delays occurred because he was attempting to deal with matters through advisers. He disputed the suggestion that he intentionally prevented the Complainant from obtaining HAP.

The Respondent further maintained that he had completed forms to the best of his ability and could not understand why the applications had been rejected. He denied deliberately withholding cooperation and submitted that any difficulties arose from misunderstanding, delay, or administrative complications rather than discrimination.

The Equal Status Acts 2000-201 (“the Acts”) prohibit discrimination in accommodation on the Housing Assistance ground. The legislation was enacted to ensure that persons entitled to housing assistance are not disadvantaged because they seek to avail of such support.

Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Acts 2000-2015 (the Act) prohibits discrimination on the ground of being in receipt of rent supplement. This section is to be read in conjunction with Section 3 of the Act which defines “discrimination” in general and specifically defines the “housing assistance ground.” 

Section 3(1) provides that:

“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) provides that discrimination in relation providing accommodation is prohibited under all the existing protected grounds and inserts 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.”).

To initiate a claim, a complainant must initially inform the party being accused in writing about the details of the allegation and express their intent to pursue a claim in the event of an unsatisfactory response. This notification should occur within two months from the occurrence of the latest discriminatory incident.

However, under s.21(3) of the Acts, this time limit can be extended or disregarded. The relevant provision provides:

(3) (a ) On application by a complainant the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court may —

(i) for reasonable cause, direct that in relation to the complainant subsection (2) shall have effect as if for the reference to 2 months there were substituted a reference to such period not exceeding 4 months as is specified in the direction, or

(ii) exceptionally, where satisfied that it is fair and reasonable in the particular circumstance of the case to do so direct that subsection (2) shall not apply in relation to the complainant to the extent specified in the direction,

and, where such a direction is given, this Part shall have effect accordingly.

(b) In deciding whether to give a direction under paragraph (a)(ii) the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission or, as the case may be, the Circuit Court shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including —

(i) the extent to which the respondent is, or is likely to be, aware of the circumstances in which the prohibited conduct occurred, and

(ii) the extent of any risk of prejudice to the respondent’ s ability to deal adequately with the complaint.”

I am satisfied that the Complainant complied with the notification requirements under section 21 of the Act when an ES1 form was sent to the Respondents on 18 June 2025, and where the Respondent duly replied with an ES2 form on 15 July 2025.

Having carefully considered the evidence before me, I prefer the evidence of the Complainant where there is a conflict between the parties. The Complainant’s evidence was supported by an extensive body of contemporaneous documentary evidence extending over a prolonged period. The chronology is detailed, internally consistent and corroborated by text messages, emails, application records, and communications involving third parties.

The Respondent’s evidence, by contrast, largely consisted of explanations for delay rather than evidence demonstrating meaningful cooperation. While I accept that the Respondent experienced difficult personal circumstances, those circumstances do not explain a pattern of delay extending over several years nor do they justify repeated failures to provide documentation required for housing assistance applications.

A striking feature of this case is the persistence demonstrated by the Complainant. She repeatedly sought cooperation. She contacted the Respondent by text, WhatsApp, email, and telephone. She involved Threshold, Citizens Information, HAP officials, the RTB and local authority services. She offered to meet the Respondent in person. She repeatedly explained the urgency of her financial circumstances. Despite these efforts, two HAP applications and a Rent Supplement application failed because the necessary landlord cooperation was not forthcoming.

I am particularly persuaded by the evidence that the Complainant was repeatedly informed that matters would be dealt with, only for further delays, explanations, or obstacles to arise. The documentary record demonstrates a prolonged failure by the Respondent to provide complete and accurate information to facilitate the Complainant’s applications.

The Respondent’s assertion that he had no objection to HAP is difficult to reconcile with the objective evidence. If there was no objection, there is no satisfactory explanation as to why the required documentation was not properly completed despite repeated requests over an extended period and despite interventions by multiple third parties.

I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to a failure to facilitate the Complainant’s access to housing assistance and that such conduct falls within the prohibition contained in the Acts regarding discrimination on the Housing Assistance ground.

I further find that the discrimination was not a single isolated incident but rather a continuing course of conduct which persisted over a significant period and had substantial financial and emotional consequences for the Complainant.

Redress

Section 27 of the Equal Status Acts empowers me to order compensation and other appropriate relief.

In assessing redress, I have taken into account the prolonged and ongoing nature of the discrimination, the Respondent’s repeated failure to cooperate despite numerous requests over an extended period, and the fact that multiple applications for housing support were ultimately rejected as a consequence. I have also considered the significant financial hardship experienced by the Complainant, together with the considerable stress, anxiety and uncertainty caused by her inability to access housing assistance. In addition, I have had regard to the disruption which this situation caused to her education and personal life, as well as the continuing impact that the Respondent’s conduct has had upon her.

Having regard to all of the circumstances, I consider that compensation in the sum of €10,000 is appropriate, proportionate, and effective. This award is compensation for the infringement of rights under the Equal Status Acts and is not in the nature of remuneration.

In addition, pursuant to my powers under Section 27 of the Equal Status Acts, I direct the Respondent to fully cooperate with and provide all documentation, information, signatures, and confirmations reasonably required to enable the Complainant to access Housing Assistance Payment or any equivalent housing support for which she is eligible.

The Respondent shall comply with this direction within six weeks of receipt of this decision and shall provide such cooperation promptly and without imposing conditions unrelated to the housing assistance application process.

Pursuant to Section 25(4) of the Equal Status Act, 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. Taking into account all pertinent facts and the impact of the discrimination on the Complainant, I hereby direct the Respondent to pay the Complainant the sum of €10000 as compensation.

In addition, pursuant to my powers under Section 27 of the Equal Status Acts, I direct the Respondent to fully cooperate with and provide all documentation, information, signatures, and confirmations reasonably required to enable the Complainant to access Housing Assistance Payment or any equivalent housing support for which she is eligible.

The Respondent shall comply with this direction within six weeks of receipt of this decision and shall provide such cooperation promptly and without imposing conditions unrelated to the housing assistance application process.

HAP. Equal Status Acts 2000-2015.