Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Greg  Rogers

Prism Properties Ltd MKN Properties Group - MKN Lettings

Representatives

  Self-Represented

  Ms Niamh McKeown

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00077442-001

11/11/2025

The parties differ as to whether the Respondent's refusal to complete Part 9 of the Rent Supplement application form without sight of Parts 1 to 8 completed constituted discrimination on the housing assistance ground.  The Complainant contends that an unnecessary and disproportionate requirement was imposed, while the Respondent maintains that it merely applied a long-standing policy of not signing incomplete documentation and denies any discriminatory treatment.

Background to the Complaint

The complaint concerns alleged unlawful discrimination related to Housing Assistance on the basis that the Respondent refused to complete and sign Part 9 of a DSP Rent Supplement Application Form unless the Applicant provided additional personal and financial information.

The Complainant  argues that this information was irrelevant and unnecessary for validating the tenancy and it is claimed that requiring this information was excessive and discriminatory, and it hindered the Applicant’s ability to access Housing Assistance support.

Substantive Complaint

In April 2025, the Complainant applied for Rent Supplement and forwarded the relevant Department of Social Protection application form to the Respondent for completion of Part 9, being the section requiring input from the landlord. The Respondent did not complete the form, and, despite reminders, no substantive response was provided for approximately two months.

When the form was eventually returned, the Respondent required the Complainant to complete sections containing what the Complainant considered to be sensitive personal information. The Complainant completed the form under protest and returned it. The Respondent subsequently returned the form again, asserting that it remained incomplete.

The Complainant then sought assistance from Threshold, which engaged in correspondence  with the Respondent on the basis that Parts 1–8 of the form were matters for the Department of Social Protection and the applicant, and that the Respondent’s role was confined to completion of Part 9.

Notwithstanding this, the Respondent maintained its position that it required access to the additional information before signing the form.

In September 2025, the Respondent issued a formal demand for rent arrears of approximately €6,300 and indicated that failure to discharge the arrears could result in the termination of the tenancy. The Complainant subsequently borrowed funds and, by October 2025, had discharged the arrears in full. A mediation process subsequently took place but did not result in a resolution of the dispute. As of May 2026, the Rent Supplement form had not been signed by the Respondent.

Consequences for the Complainant

The Complainant submits that the Respondent's refusal to complete Part 9 of the Rent Supplement application prevented the application from progressing through the Department of Social Protection. As a consequence, the Complainant was unable to access Rent Supplement and was required to continue meeting rental obligations from personal savings and borrowed funds.

The Complainant further submits that the delay in processing the application contributed to the accumulation of substantial rent arrears. Following the Respondent's demand for payment of approximately €6,300 and the threat of termination of the tenancy, the Complainant borrowed that sum from a former colleague in order to discharge the arrears and avoid eviction.

It is submitted that the Respondent's continued refusal to sign the form caused significant stress, uncertainty and financial hardship for the Complainant and their family, particularly in circumstances where the dispute remained unresolved and the risk of losing the family home was perceived to be ongoing.

Issues

The central issue in this complaint is whether the Respondent was entitled to require the Complainant to complete sections of the Rent Supplement application form beyond those ordinarily required of a tenant before completing the landlord's section of that form.

The complaint further raises the question of whether the Respondent's insistence on obtaining additional personal information constituted a disproportionate or unnecessary condition in circumstances where the Complainant was seeking to access Rent Supplement. The Adjudication Officer is invited to  consider whether the Respondent's actions amounted to less favourable treatment on the housing assistance ground contrary to the Equal Status Acts and, if so, whether the Respondent's conduct contributed to the financial hardship, rent arrears and associated distress relied upon by the Complainant.

Key Admission of the Respondent

The  Complainant sets out that the Respondent accepted that it received the Complainant's request in April 2025 to complete Part 9 of the Rent Supplement application form. The Respondent's evidence was that it did not refuse outright to complete the form but maintained that it required additional information from the Complainant before doing so. In particular, the Respondent sought details concerning the Complainant's financial circumstances, including information relating to earnings, savings, investments and employment history.

The Respondent further accepted that the tenancy registration was not brought fully up to date until August 2025 and acknowledged that the Department of Social Protection would not process the Rent Supplement application in the absence of the necessary tenancy documentation. The Respondent stated that it operated a policy of not signing forms it considered incomplete and maintained that its requests for additional information were made for that reason rather than for any discriminatory purpose.

Redress Sought

The Complainant seeks a finding that the Respondent engaged in prohibited conduct contrary to the Equal Status Acts by discriminating against them on the housing assistance ground. It is submitted that the Respondent's refusal to complete the landlord's section of the Rent Supplement application form, and the conditions imposed before doing so, amounted to less favourable treatment within the meaning of the Acts.

The Complainant further seeks compensation for the effects of the alleged discrimination, including the financial hardship, distress and insecurity said to have resulted from the delay in accessing Rent Supplement and the accumulation of rent arrears. The Complainant also requests such further redress or directions as may be considered appropriate by the Adjudication Officer pursuant to the Equal Status Acts

The Respondent denies that the Complainant was subjected to any less favourable treatment on the housing assistance ground. The Respondent's evidence is that it has acted as a landlord for in excess of 20 years and has regularly accommodated tenants in receipt of both Rent Supplement and Housing Assistance Payment (HAP). It was submitted that the Respondent currently has tenants in receipt of both forms of housing support and has never operated a policy of refusing to complete the necessary landlord certification required for either scheme.

The Respondent stated that its longstanding practice is to sign Rent Supplement and HAP forms once they have been completed and signed by the tenant.

It was submitted that the Rent Supplement application form contains nine sections, the first eight of which are to be completed by the applicant before the landlord completes Section 9.

The Respondent contends that it does not sign incomplete forms and that this policy applies to all tenants equally. According to the Respondent, the Complainant submitted an incomplete form in April 2025, which was returned with a request that it be completed and signed before being resubmitted for the Respondent's signature.

The Respondent further submits that it repeatedly informed the Complainant that, once a completed and signed form was returned, it would complete Section 9 and return the form without delay. It was stated that, had the Complainant done so in June 2025, the form would have been signed and returned, and the Rent Supplement application could have proceeded at that time. The Respondent therefore rejects the contention that it prevented the Complainant from accessing Rent Supplement and maintains that any delay arose from the Complainant's refusal to complete the form in the manner requested.

Finally, the Respondent notes that disputes concerning the tenancy and alleged breaches of landlord and tenant obligations are the subject of separate Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) proceedings. Evidence was given that an RTB Tribunal hearing took place on 1 May 2026 and that a determination in those proceedings remains awaited.

Preliminary Matters

The parties are involved in a wider dispute and there have been hearings before the RTB  for which a determination is awaited. I made enquiries of the parties as to the nature of that dispute and the dispute before. Having heard their submissions, I am satisfied I have jurisdiction over the matter referred to the Commission in terms of deciding the question of whether the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant on the housing assistance ground.

I have confined myself to this and have ensured that I have not strayed into the jurisdiction of the RTB.

Equal Status Act

The Equal Status Acts prohibit discrimination in the provision of goods and services, the disposal of premises and provision of accommodation, and access to educational establishments. The Acts identify a number of protected grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited including the housing assistance ground.

Discrimination

It is well accepted that discrimination occurs when a person is treated less favourably, in comparison to another, because one person is in receipt or attempts to be in receipt  of rent supplement, housing assistance or any other social welfare payment, and the other is not. The Acts prohibit less favourable treatment on that basis.

The Substantive Element of the Complaint.

The Complainant sought, as is their right, to avail of the Rent Supplement provision from the DSP.

In order to do this, they are required to submit documentation on the application form part 1 to 8. These parts  contained amongst other matters personal information including financial information on the Complainant.

The Respondent as Landlord is required to complete part 9 to allow the process be completed. In this case the Respondent  refused to sign the form without having sight of parts 1 to 8,

The Reason given for this is that it is their policy to refuse to sign incomplete documentation. Two things arise in this, notwithstanding, it is their policy and a relatively prudent one, such a policy if it is to restrict a person’s rights must be proportional toward a legitimate aim and if the documentation was incomplete to support such a refusal.

Comparators

Equality law is based on comparison – how one person is treated by comparison to another who does not possess the relevant characteristic. It is therefore necessary to ground a claim of discrimination by pointing to how another person, not having that protected characteristic relied upon, was, is or would be treated in a comparable situation.

In many cases the comparator will be an actual person. However, if an actual comparator is not available, in some cases a hypothetical comparator can be constructed by asking why the complainant was treated as they were. If the treatment complained of was because of a protected characteristic, a hypothetical comparator is a supposed person who does not have that characteristic, but who is otherwise in the same position as the complainant.

In the instant case there has been no mention of any comparator, by name other than a person not seeking the utilise the Rent Supplement which is perfectly acceptable with regard to the complaint as it is.

Prima Facie Case

It is his case the Respondent in their failure to comply meant he suffered less favourable treatment than a comparator. Having done so it is for the Respondent to rebut the claim.

The Complainant has established facts from which discrimination on the housing assistance ground may reasonably be inferred. The Complainant was seeking to avail of Rent Supplement and required the Respondent's completion of Part 9 of the relevant application form in order to progress that application.

It is not denied  that the Respondent refused to complete Part 9 unless it was first provided with the information contained in Parts 1 to 8 of the application form, including personal and financial information relating to the Complainant. Such a requirement arose because the Complainant was seeking Rent Supplement and would not have arisen for a tenant who was not seeking housing assistance. The Respondent sets out that they have no interest in the information contained therein but believe it is a necessity of the process.

In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant has identified a suitable comparator, namely any tenant who was not seeking Rent Supplement and who would not be required to disclose such information to the Respondent.

I am further satisfied that the requirement imposed by the Respondent constitutes facts of sufficient significance from which less favourable treatment on the housing assistance ground may be inferred.

Accordingly, the Complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden therefore shifted to the Respondent to demonstrate that the treatment complained of was objectively justified, pursued a legitimate aim and was both appropriate and necessary in the circumstances

Legitimate Aim

The Equal Status Acts do not prevent a service provider or accommodation provider from pursuing a legitimate aim, provided that the measures adopted are objectively justified and proportionate to that aim. The Respondent set out that it is their policy to refuse to sign incomplete documentation.

In considering the Respondent's explanation, I must therefore assess not only whether the aim relied upon was legitimate, but also whether the steps taken were appropriate, necessary and no more restrictive than was reasonably required to achieve that aim.

A measure which places a particular burden upon a person protected by the Acts cannot be justified merely because it is convenient or administratively desirable; there must be a rational connection between the measure and the objective pursued, and the means adopted must be proportionate in all the circumstances

The Form Parts 1-7

An examination of the form shows that part 1 to part 7 are all in relation to personal details of the Applicant, including sensitive financial details  on income and relationship details. 

Part 8

Part 8 of the application  is a declaration on the part of the Applicant that the information provided is complete and accurate, acknowledges that any false, misleading or incomplete information may result in repayment of any assistance received and possible prosecution, and undertakes to notify the Department immediately of any change in circumstances that may affect entitlement. At this point the form instructs the applicant to send the completed application form to the National Rent Supplement Section in Dublin 2

The Form Part 9

Part 9 refers to the Landlord or Agent and requires and entirely separate Declaration that the information they ( the Landlord) provide is correct and accurate. These details relate to the contractual relationship between the applicant and landlord/Agent and no more. At no point is the Respondent asked to make a declaration as to the accuracy or truthfulness of parts 1 to 7.

The Respondent failed to explain to me beyond their own administrative purposes of their reason to fail to make the required declaration. Nothing was offered to me in evidence that the aim could be justified as proportionate and justified.

Conclusion

I accept that the Respondent operates a general policy of not signing documentation which it considers incomplete.

I further accept that such a policy is capable of pursuing a legitimate objective in appropriate circumstances. However, for the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that requiring sight of Parts 1 to 8 of the Rent Supplement application form was necessary or proportionate to that objective.

The Complainant, as a person seeking to avail of Rent Supplement, falls within the protection afforded by the housing assistance ground under the Equal Status Acts. The Respondent did not dispute that the Complainant was a person to whom that protection applied.

I am satisfied that the requirement imposed by the Respondent arose because the Complainant was seeking Rent Supplement and that he was therefore subject to preconditions which were not imposed on others not seeking the same. The fact that this meant he would be required to disclose personal and financial information contained in Parts 1 to 8 of the form that related not just to him but to close relations is an unnecessary and unjustified precondition. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination.

The burden therefore shifted to the Respondent to demonstrate that the treatment complained of was objectively justified by a legitimate aim and that the means employed were appropriate and necessary. While I accept that the Respondent acted in accordance with its own stated policy, I am not satisfied that the Respondent has demonstrated the completion of the  Complainant's personal and financial information was necessary before completing Part 9, which related solely to matters within the Respondent's own knowledge as landlord.

I therefore find that the treatment complained of constituted less favourable treatment on the housing assistance ground contrary to the Equal Status Acts which resulted in delayed access to the Rent Supplement through their requirement for the Complainant to disclose unnecessary personal information and this caused  stress, inconvenience and uncertainty caused by that conduct over a protracted period of time.

Redress

The Respondent's failure to complete Part 9 prevented the Complainant from progressing the Rent Supplement application exposed  the Complainant to ongoing rental liability, financial uncertainty and the accumulation of arrears.

I do not find the reasons proffered by the Respondent as to their continued failure to complete Part 9 as being reasonable or justified.

While I cannot confidently and precisely quantify the amount of Rent Supplement that would have been paid, I am satisfied that the Respondent's conduct contributed to the financial hardship experienced by the Complainant. In those circumstances,  I order that the respondent pay to the complainant the compensatory sum of €7,500.00.

Pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the Equal Status Acts, I direct the Respondent to discontinue the practice of requiring applicants for Rent Supplement or other housing assistance schemes to disclose personal or financial information contained in sections of application forms that do not require verification by the Respondent as landlord before completing the landlord's declaration.

In assessing compensation, I have not sought to compensate the Complainant for matters which are properly the subject of the separate RTB proceedings. Rather, I have confined my assessment to the effects of the discrimination found, including the prolonged uncertainty, stress and financial insecurity occasioned by the Respondent's conduct.

Section 25 of the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under section 27 of that Act.

I find that the complaint is well founded. Pursuant to section 27(1)(a) of the Equal Status Acts 2000–2018, I order the Respondent to pay the Complainant compensation in the sum of €7,500.00 for the effects of the prohibited conduct.

Pursuant to section 27(1)(b) of the Equal Status Acts, I direct the Respondent to discontinue the practice of requiring applicants for Rent Supplement or other housing assistance schemes to disclose personal or financial information contained in sections of application forms that do not require verification by the Respondent as landlord before completing the landlord's declaration

Housing Assistance Ground, Rent Supplement, Legitimate Aim, Proportionality,