Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lesley Mbuyi  Kayembe

Ruslan Shashkov

Complainant

Respondent

Parties

Lesley Mbuyi  Kayembe

Ruslan Shashkov

Representatives

  Self

 Self

Act

Complaint Reference No.

Date of Receipt

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

CA-00073415-001

14/07/2025

The Complainant alleges that they were directly and or indirectly discriminated against by the Respondent Landlord who advertised an apartment for rent for €2100.

The Complainant was approved for Home Assistance Payment amounting to €1875 and brings this claim against the Respondent for failing to rent the apartment to her.

The Complainant stated that she was approved for the HAP payment. There can be some delay in setting up the payment to the landlord, but no more than a few days. The Landlord initially agreed to rent her the apartment and then changed his mind. That refusal was unreasonable and was directly linked to the fact that the Complainant was dependent on HAP. The consequences of not providing her with accommodation meant she was facing being homeless.

The Respondent was renting this apartment for the first time and in fact agreed to accept HAP. There were several parties interested in the apartment and he liked the Complainant and offered the apartment to her. At their first meeting he stated that he required a deposit and the Complainant stated she had €1000 that she would give to him. He accepted that offer; however, the Complainant came back to say she didn’t have that amount. A lower amount was offered, and he was willing to accept this and for the remaining deposit to be paid over several months. However, he wasn’t willing to rent the property without some deposit as the property had been furnished, and he wanted some guarantees around potential damage.

The Landlord and the prospective tenant met on the 15th of March 2025, and the Landlord was willing to accept HAP. I find the evidence of the Respondent credible. The Complainant made several offers to the Landlord knowing that she had no funds to provide for a deposit or to keep her word. As each of her offers failed to materialise his view of this prospective tenant changed. He compromised on several occasions; however, as the Complainant failed consistently to meet her side of the contract and based on this, he withdrew the offer. The Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. The reason for the withdrawal of the offer was the consistent misrepresentation by the Complainant that she had a deposit when she hadn’t. That sequence of interactions gave rise to the Landlord with good reason withdrawing the offer. The withdrawal had nothing to do with HAP rather with false promises made by the Respondent and a failure to make good on her promise.  I find against the Complainant.  If the Complainant has represented that both the deposit and the rent would be paid in near future, then the apartment would have been rented to her. Her own actions and failure to honour terms she freely agreed to gave rise to the Landlord withdrawing the offer and that had nothing to do with being on HAP

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent treated her unlawfully by discriminating against her in Accommodation Selected arising from his refusal to accept housing assistance

The Respondent did not engage in prohibited conduct. The reason for the withdrawal of the offer was the consistent misrepresentation by the Complainant that she had a deposit when she hadn’t.  That sequence of repeated misleading offers that never materialised gave rise to the Landlord, with good reason, withdrawing the offer. He compromised significantly and was very mindful of her difficult circumstances.  The withdrawal had nothing to do with HAP, rather with false promises made by the Respondent. I find against the Complainant. The Complaint is not well founded.

Misrepresentation.