ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00048590

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearings:

28.05.24; 19.08.24; 31.03.25; 01.12.25; 17.02.26; 18.02.26; 27.02.26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Emer O'Shea

Procedure:

In accordance Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).

In accordance with Section 41(13) and (14) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015, as this case references minors, I have decided to anonymise the decision.

Evidence was given under oath or by way of affirmation from the following witnesses:

Ms. A Claimant

Mr. A – Claimant’s Partner

And for the respondent by

Mrs. B Respondent

Mr. B Respondent’s Son

Ms. C Respondent’s daughter

I allowed the right to test the oral evidence presented by way of cross examination.

The parties’ respective positions are summarised below and are followed by my findings and conclusions.

An application to alter the name of the claimant to that of Mr. A and children was made by the claimant at the hearing of the 19th August 2024 – each complainant needs to issue a separate complaint form - as this did not occur, I have no jurisdiction to effect such an amendment.

The complaint regarding discrimination on the grounds of Civil Status was withdrawn at the hearing on the 1st.Dec. 2025.

 At the hearing of the 1st.Dec. 2025 which commenced at 11.0 a.m. the respondent sought an adjournment after an hour to make arrangements for her adult daughter who suffers from a number of health challenges. No prior notice of an adjournment request had been given to the WRC or the claimant’s side. The claimant who had travelled from Galway objected to the adjournment. I advised the respondent that unless compelling documentary evidence was submitted to support her adjournment application, the hearing would resume at 2.00p.m. The respondent phoned to advise that she would be unable to obtain a medical certificate to support her application on that day. The hearing resumed at 2.00p.m. in the absence of the respondent.

Neither party were legally represented. Over 1600 pages of emails were furnished and exchanged between the parties over the course of the hearings. Post hearing correspondence was submitted by both parties’ following completion of the oral hearings – these submissions captured the respective positions of the parties with respect to eligibility for HAP.

The parties were unfamiliar with formal court proceedings including cross examination. Both parties repeatedly conflated previous proceedings at the RTB with the WRC.

I am required to set out ‘such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to the decision’ per MacMenamin J. in Nano Nagle School v Daly [2019] IESC 63.

74. A tribunal, or other decision-maker which is under a duty to give reasons for its decision, should, as part of this process, give some outline of the relevant facts and evidence upon which the reasoning is based. This does not in any sense, mean that a determination must set out all of the evidence; but it should set out such evidential material which is fundamentally relevant to its decision or determination; still more if such relevant evidence is not disputed.”

Notice and Jurisdictional Requirements under the Act are addressed in my findings and conclusions.

Background:

Complaint regarding the failure to process HAP application.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT’S CASE

Evidence of Mrs. B:

 In her direct evidence Mrs. B said she did not want this dispute affecting her family – they were being negatively affected by what was going on. The respondent said that her son had told her that Ms. A was going to apply for HAP and she went out of her way to attend the Public Services Centre in Location X to find out if they had applied for HAP and was advised that no HAP application had been received. She asserted that she was told there that it was the tenant who had to make the application and not the landlady. At the hearing on the 31st.March 2025, Mrs. B   accepted Ms. A had raised the matter of a HAP application with her. Mrs. B said she was unable to recall any correspondence referring to County Council A. Mrs. B was unable to explain why she did not communicate the response from County Council B with regard to no HAP application having been received by them to Ms. A.

Mrs. B gave evidence that she went to the County Council following receipt of the ES1 in late 2023. While it was accepted that Ms. A had referred to HAP paperwork, Mrs. B said she had no recollection of a request to forward the paperwork to County Council A. Both Mrs. B and Mr. B asserted that the application would have to be submitted to County Council B. The respondent confirmed that the complainant continued to pay rent until October 2023.

 When asked by Ms. A under cross examination why Mrs. B would not confirm the IBAN number given to Ms. A by Ms. C, Mrs. B replied that her second daughter was unwell – she said her daughter had cancer and Ms. A   had shown no empathy. When asked by Ms. A why she did not sign the HAP forms Mrs. B replied that she made enquiries, her daughter was ill and she did not have the time to do it.

It was put to Mrs. B that she had threatened to compel Mr.B to leave the home house if he spoke to Ms. A or any of her family. Mrs. B said that Ms. A had told her stuff that was not true. Mrs. B asserted that she disputed Ms. A’s evidence – she said Ms. A had no conscience – she said she (Mrs. B) was in her 80’s and that her character was clear. The respondent repeated that she went to Location X to ask about HAP and was advised that no HAP application had been submitted by Ms. A and that she then referred the matter to Ms. C. When asked by the undersigned why she did not tell Ms. A that she was told by County Council B that there was no HAP application submitted to them by Ms. A, Mrs. B replied that she had been told by the Gardaí not to go near Ms. A or her family on her own.

Evidence of Mr. B

In his direct evidence Mr. B   said that the claimants had not secured any permission to take videos and that consequently they had no standing. He submitted that no rent was paid from October 2023 and his mother Mrs. B went to see a solicitor.

Mr. B   said there had been no attempt to pay rent by the complainants – they had given the relevant BIC and IBAN numbers in September 2023 – notice of termination was issued in October 2023. The termination notice was found to be invalid. It was submitted that Mrs. B   wanted to inspect the property for HAP, but they could not secure access to the property. He said that access to the property was obtained on the 9th.July. He advised they did not complete the HAP forms. Mr. B said that after they received the ES1 by registered post from the claimant   they went to the Council Offices in Location X and were told that the claimant had not applied for HAP.

The witness set out an account of the serving of a tenancy termination notice on the claimant. He said when his mother secured a new IBAN and BIC reference number in September 2023 she sent messages to Ms. A with the new numbers but no payment was received. The witness said his mother gave notice to the claimant advising that she wished to inspect the property for HAP purposes, but they were unable to get access to the property and did not complete the HAP forms. He said they eventually got access on the 9th.August.

The witness opposed the introduction of video footage by the claimant’s side and said the filming took place on his land and represented an attack on his Mum.

Mr. B asserted that by Sept. 2023 when the claimant and her partner were given the BIC and IBAN numbers   €6,000-€7,000 was owed by the tenants in arrears.

The witness said that the complainant had presented no proof of having sent forms to the respondent. He questioned why a landlord would restrict someone from getting rent assistance. He said Mrs. B   already knew Mr. A and his background from the 22nd.Sept. when she signed the tenancy agreement with him.

Under cross examination by Ms. A, it was put to Mr. B that the respondent was found to have been in breach of their obligations regarding the standard and maintenance of the property by the RTB.

The witness denied ever receiving a HAP form – he said the subject was raised when the complainants were viewing the house – Mr. B said he did not know what HAP was to Ms. A and she replied it didn’t matter anyway. He said he did not remember any further communication on the matter – he referenced his health challenges and the fact that he was on medication for anti- depressants and that this may had contributed to his memory problems. He said the comments attributed to him by Ms. A in the WhatsApp messages submitted into evidence by Ms. A were related to his relationship with his wife – he had no recollection of being told by his mother to refrain from engaging with Ms. A and her family.

Evidence of Ms. C

In her direct evidence Ms. C maintained that the IBAN number was furnished to the complainant side on numerous occasions. She said that when they enquired from the Local Authority if Ms. A had made a HAP application they were told Ms. A had not applied. Ms. C submitted that the claimant had submitted   text messages that were out of sequence and provocative and it was asserted that Ms. A had been   making statements that were unfounded and were not true. She said that Ms. A had blocked messages from her family.

Ms. C estimated that her mother returned to Ireland in May June2023 – she said her mother had been back and forth on a few occasions. She said that the family would have happily allowed HAP but at the time, the tenants had refused to pay outstanding rent. The witness went on to say that the tenants had won their case at the RTB because her mother – Mrs. B– had nobody to represent her at the hearing of the matter. She referred to her mother not being I.T. literate and suggested this explained why Mrs. B did not fill forms.

In summing up Ms. C said that the claimant’s evidence was vague and she would like to see the HAP applications that had been submitted. She said there was no documents submitted to demonstrate when the Local Authority A HAP application was closed and the Local Authority B HAP case was opened.

Ms. C said her mother went to the Council Offices of Local Authority B – she suggested the claimant was claiming 2 benefits. The witness said the landlord was not required to do anything – it was a matter for Ms. A   to get approval from the Council for Housing. The witness said she could not deal with HAP given the damage to property and the non-payment of rent.

 Ms. C accused the claimant of presenting misleading information and asserted that to receive HAP you had to be living in Local Authority B and be approved for Social Housing. She accused Ms. A of damaging her family’s property and of never paying rent. Ms. C   asserted that her mother never received HAP forms. She said her family would have welcomed HAP as it would have dealt with the rent issue. It was submitted that Ms. A did not clarify or explain HAP – until she (Ms. A) stopped paying rent.

Ms. C   said her family had no issue with travellers – their issue was damage to property and the non-paying of rent.

 She said her mother supported travellers and had been involved in Donegal Women’s Network and had worked in a voluntary capacity as a journalist and activist 20 years ago. She asserted that if the family were aware that HAP was a means to sorting the matter of rent out, they would very willingly have complied with any requirements in relation to filling of forms.

Findings and Conclusions:

Complaint of discrimination on grounds of HAP.

I have reviewed the evidence presented at all hearings and taken account of the voluminous submissions of the parties. At the final hearing on the 27th.February, the claimant undertook to submit further documentation with respect to her applications for HAP and the local authorities (A & B) responses to same. A series of emails containing submissions and counter submissions with respect to the HAP applications were furnished to the WRC following the final hearing on the 27th. February.

In making these findings, I have considered the documentation submitted in advance of the hearing, the oral evidence adduced at the hearing and the oral and written submissions made by and on behalf of the parties throughout the process.

I am required to determine whether the Respondents have acted as alleged by the Complainant and, if so finding, whether their actions constitute discrimination under the housing assistance ground. 

In this respect, it is firstly necessary to set out the relevant legislation as follows:

Section 6(1) of the Equal Status Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2000 Act”) provides: 

“A person shall not discriminate in- (a) disposing of any estate or interest in premises, (b) terminating any tenancy or other interest in premises, or (c) subject to subsection (1A), providing accommodation or any services or amenities related to accommodation or ceasing to provide accommodation or any such services or amenities.”  

Section 6(1) of the 2000 Act has to be read and interpreted in conjunction with section 3 of the 2000 Act which gives meaning to “discrimination” across ten grounds including the “housing assistance ground”. 

Specifically, section 3(1) of the 2000 Act 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(3B) of the 2000 Act provides that in addition to the existing prohibition of discrimination in relation to the provision of accommodation under the nine protected grounds, discrimination is prohibited under 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”).”  

It is well settled law that the aforesaid provisions apply to both prospective and existing tenants.

Section 38A of the 2000 Act provides for the applicable burden of proof and requires the Complainant to establish, in the first instance, facts from which the discrimination or victimisation alleged may be inferred. It is only where such a prima facie case of discrimination or victimisation, as the case may be, has been established that the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut that inference.

. Section 3(3B) of the 2000 Act clearly imposes a legal obligation on landlords to accept recipients of housing assistance payments as tenants (subject to statutory exceptions) and intrinsic to that, to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that they can access the housing assistance payments to which they are entitled.

Preliminary Matter of Jurisdiction

Notification Requirements:

As set out in Section 21(2) (a) the Act requires a complainant to provide notification of the complaint within 2 months of the alleged prohibited conduct or the last such occurrence and provide notification of an intention to issue a complaint. On the complaint form the claimant identified the date of occurrence of the last incident as the 7th.November 2023 but at the first hearing of the matter on the 28th.May 2024 she was unable to elaborate on the discriminatory treatment. At the hearing on the31st.March 2025, the claimant referred to the respondent’s unwillingness to sign up to HAP and the negative comments and name calling of her husband as a “dirty tinker and knacker”. In her direct evidence the claimant asserted that the respondent had been sent an ES1 on the 15th.Sept. 2023, the 24th.August2023 and on the 29th.Nov. 2023.The respondent denied receiving the first 2 ES1’s and accepted the ES1 sent on the 29th.Nov. 2023 was received in the post. I have considered the evidence of both parties on this matter and note an acknowledged lack of clarity and recollection about timelines in the evidence given by both Mr. B   and Mrs. B. I note that Ms. C resided in the UK. For her part, the claimant did confirm that the family had moved house in such a hurry that they did not have all relevant documentation to hand. The claimant was consistent  with respect to the matter of sending the ES1s on the 3 dates listed above .I find on the balance of probabilities  Ms. A’s evidence to be more credible than that of Mrs. B and Mr. B .I further find that I am entitled to draw inferences from the respondent’s failure to respond to the ES1’s . I am satisfied that the claimant sent the ES1’s on the dates outlined above and for the avoidance of doubt I am satisfied that the notification requirements set out in the Act were met by the issuing and receipt of the ES1 that was sent by certified post on the 29th.November 2023.  

Cognisable Period

In this case, the matter of jurisdiction to investigate the complaint arises in the context of timelines. As previously referenced, there were inconsistencies in the evidence of both parties with respect to timelines. The complainant’s complaint was received by the WRC on the 7th.November 2023.In the complaint form the claimant complained of discrimination arising from the respondent’s refusal to allow “Hap Payments “. The cognisable period for consideration of the complaint is the 8th.May 2023 to the date of receipt of the complaint on the 7th.November 2023.

The claimant gave evidence that when the family commenced renting the property on the 1st.Sept.2022, they were dealing with Mr. B – son of the respondent -who was acting landlord. The claimant asserted that Mr. B   responded that he was unaware of the Scheme, but he would talk to his sister about it. Ms. A said that they did not anticipate any problems with the submission of the application for HAP. She said the application was delayed because of the respondent’s delay in registering the property with the RTB. She said she was waiting 9 months to receive this information from Mr. B.

The undersigned sought documentary evidence of the date of registration of the tenancy and both parties   submitted an RTB document referencing the 3rd.Sept. 2022 as the registration date. Ms. A asserted that she sent the HAP application twice to Mrs. B and maintained that Mrs. B   never responded. Ms. A   also referenced a request she sent by text to the respondent to complete the HAP form.

In  a further email dated the 11th.June 2024  from the claimant to the WRC , the claimant  referred to her reference in the mail to HAP not being allowed by Mrs. B   – the claimant made the point that the email had been copied to Mrs. B   and accordingly she would have been aware of the request for cooperation with her HAP application.  It is noteworthy that this document was issued 7 months after the complaint was received by the WRC. In light of the dispute between the parties about their engagements in relation to completing a HAP application I requested the claimant to submit all documentary evidence of her request/s to the respondent to complete a HAP application.

The only documentation submitted by the claimant was the printed version of the text (previously referred to above) which was sent to the respondent on the 14th.November 2023. The text of the message read as follows.

“The water in the house is still unsafe /unclean. I have had the water tested already and it’s not good. When are you going to get this sorted -My family need clean water.

And there will be HAP forms delivered to you which you need to fill in and return to County Council A asap.”

 At the first hearing of the complaint on the 24th.May 2024 the claimant was asked to clarify the reference in her complaint form to the WRC to the most recent date of discrimination being the 7th.Nov.2023 – the claimant was unable to articulate what discriminatory treatment took place on that date. At the hearing on the 31st.March 2025, the claimant said when referring to the most recent date of discrimination as the 7th.Nov. 2023 – she said that this was when Mrs. B had returned from the UK and discovered Mr. A was a Traveller. At a later date this timescale was disputed by Mr. B and Mrs. B   when they asserted that Mrs. B was coming back and forth from the UK and that her return date was in fact in June of 2023.

When questioned by   the undersigned about the delay in lodging her complaint to the WRC having regard to the tenancy commencing in early September 2022 and the complaint being lodged some 14 months later the claimant responded in an email to the WRC dated the 1st.Dec. 2025:

The claimant submitted that they signed their tenancy with Mr. B and were told he was their acting landlord and they would be dealing with him regarding tenancy. The claimant said everything was perfect for several months. Mr. B became friends with them and most of the communication between them was conversational. According to Ms. A, they explained to him the need to sort HAP payments and she asserted that he assured her that it would be sorted as soon as they got the house sorted. The claimant said that they believed the respondent and consequently had no reason to complain at that time. Ms. A asserted that when Mr. B   introduced Mrs. B to the family, Mrs. B took an immediate dislike to Mr. A and that was when the problems started for example name calling “Tinker” as well as accusations of theft and damage to property. They initially tried to ignore it, but the respondent started showing up at the house late at night screaming “the tinker is stealing my money, I want the dirty tinkers out of my house.” It was submitted that Mrs. B started screaming at the children when they were playing outside.

The claimant said Mrs. B refused to do any repairs to the house “and continued with the abuse and harassment until she illegally evicted the family on the 5th.Aug. 2024 “.

According to the claimant

 They first asked Mr. B for Hap in person and it was agreed.

Ms. C started preparing the house for hap.

Mrs. B returned to Ireland and all preparations for Hap stopped.

The claimant said she then made her complaints to the WRC and the RTB and began collecting evidence. They started putting things in writing at this point when the respondent stopped preparations for HAP.

It was submitted that the respondent would have been aware they were looking for HAP because she would have been copied with their complaint to the RTB which contained references to HAP. The claimant said she won 2 cases against the respondent with the RTB for failing to do repairs for turning off electricity, for harassment and for their illegal eviction.

At the final hearing of the complaint on the 27th of February, it was put to the claimant under cross examination that neither Mr. B, Mrs. B   nor Ms. C had ever received a HAP form from her or any Local Authority. I note that in her evidence at the hearing on the 31st.March 2025, Mrs. B accepted that Ms. A had raised the matter of HAP with her but she said she had no recollection of a request to forward the form to County Council A. According to the respondent, she was told by her son that Ms. A was going to apply for HAP and she went out of her way to make enquiries about HAP at the Local Authority Offices -B.

 According to Mrs. B the receipt of the ESI on the 29th.November prompted her to go to the Council. She stated in her evidence that she was advised by   County Council B they had not received any HAP application from Ms. A and was told that it was the tenant who had to make the application and not the landlady.  When requested by the undersigned to clarify why she did not communicate this Local Authority Advice to Ms. A, Mrs. B was unable to offer any explanation.

For his part Mr. B denied ever receiving a HAP form – he said the subject was raised when the claimant was viewing the house (Sept. 2022)- Mr. B said he did not know what HAP was to Ms. A and she replied that it did not matter anyway.

I have reviewed the entirety of the evidence submitted and have taken into account the voluminous submissions of the parties. I find there were inconsistencies in the evidence of both parties particularly with respect to timelines. I also acknowledge the submissions made by the respondent’s representative with regard to her mother’s proficiency in IT. I further acknowledge Mr. B’s assertions of unclear recollections that were attributable to mental health challenges. I further acknowledge Ms. A’s submission that they vacated the house in a hurry and documentation had been mislaid in the process. Notwithstanding these acknowledgements I find the respondent’s failure to advise the claimant of the information they received from County Council B to the effect that they had no application before them from the claimant to be indicative of an unwillingness on the part of the respondent to facilitate the claimant’s access to HAP. When the claimant sought to challenge the respondent about failing to cooperate with her efforts to secure HAP, the respondent’s witnesses invariably reverted to the matter of payment of rent and appeared to hold the view that they were entitled to desist from cooperating with the HAP process for as long as the rent remained unpaid.

Notwithstanding this, I have to arrive at my conclusions on the balance of probabilities. The claimant repeatedly asserted that the matter of HAP was raised with Mrs. B and Mr. B   on a number of occasions. The respondent and her son and daughter were adamant that they never received HAP forms or correspondence on HAP from the claimant. I must conclude on the basis of the dearth of documentary evidence   presented to the WRC that when the claimant sent the text regarding HAP to the Mrs. B  on the 14th.Nov. 2023  she was addressing her in the future tense “ there will be HAP forms delivered to you which you need to fill in and return to County Council A  asap “.One can only conclude on the balance of probabilities,  that at that point in time , the respondent had not been furnished with the HAP documentation .The date of the text  was (Nov.14 2023 ) one week after the submission of the complaint to the WRC on the 7th.Nov. 2023. In these circumstances I am obliged to find that the complaint was prematurely lodged prior to failure by the respondent to “take such steps as are necessary to ensure that they can access the housing assistance payments to which they are entitled”. Accordingly, I find that at the time the complaint was lodged, no contravention of the Act had occurred and consequently I have no jurisdiction to further investigate the complaint.

Complaint of Discriminatory Treatment and Harassment

Complaint regarding Discriminatory   Treatment and Harassment.

 Evidence of Ms. A

Ms. A submitted that on Mrs. B’s return from England in June 2023, the respondent started to harass her and her family.

She said Mrs. B   and her son called to the house at 2.00 a.m. on the 16th.June 2023 and started shouting and screaming referring to” tinkers” being in the house. She said Mrs. B   was alleging that the family were stealing from her property and accessing her bank account. Ms. A said that Mr. B was videoing the incident. According to Ms. A, when she told Mrs. B   to leave the property, Mrs. B   hit her partner with the side of the jeep and left after referring to the children as” tinker children.” Ms. A   said that Mrs. B   thought they were stealing money, but they were in fact paying the rent to Mrs. B’s UK account. Ms. A referred to Mrs. B    videoing through the windows and said that   they (Mrs. B and Mr. B) threw their child’s bike into the bushes and attempted to hit their dog.

 It was submitted that when Mrs. B   returned from the UK she discovered Mr. A was a traveller. The witness gave evidence of her accusations against Mrs. B    regarding hitting Mr. A with a jeep and shouting at the children to leave her house – according to Ms. A, the respondent, and her son told the” tinker children” to get off her property.

 Ms. A alleged that Mr. B complained to her about abusive behaviour on the part of his mother and copies of electronic messages relating to this were submitted into evidence. Ms. A said the text messages were evidence of how much the respondent disliked her family. She asserted that the respondent would not allow her son to speak with the claimant or her family and that he would be put out of the house by his mother if he engaged with the claimant and her family.

Ms. A reiterated her account of the night of the 16th.June 2023 - she complained at 12.13a.m. about the electricity box sparking via a text message. She said Mr. B arrived at the house in a jeep with his mother – according to Ms. A, the respondent was staring through the windows and when Ms. A tried to confront her, Mrs. B   tried to slap her. She said Mrs. B    was insulting her children calling them “tinkers”. Ms. A referred to text messages from Ms. C to Ms. A   referring to alcohol problems. She said Ms. C referred to being shocked at her mother’s behaviour and Ms. A introduced text messages into evidence which Ms. A stated provided confirmation of that.

 Ms. A   said she wanted to have her video evidence considered as it demonstrated the abusive behaviour of Mrs. B. She said it contained statements from Mr.  B   and it showed bruises incurred by her family and it showed how the respondent flashed lights into their house.  It was submitted that the evidence showed harassment, abusive and violent behaviour and showed evidence that one of the respondent’s party admitted to being paranoid.

Ms. A said that Mr. B apologised for his mother’s behaviour and said that he was embarrassed. She said Mrs. B was mocking her and her children and said get the” tinkers out of my house.” Ms. A reiterated that Mrs. B tried to hit Mr. A with the mirror on the passenger door of the jeep.

The claimant said she received an email from Mrs. B   saying that they would enter the house forcefully when they were out – according to Ms. A, Mrs. B said she did not want a “tinker family.” The claimant asserted that the withholding of the IBAN account was an attempt to evict her family.

Ms. A acknowledged she did not seek permission to take videos of the behaviour of the respondent and her family. She submitted that the respondents could see her filming their interactions.

Ms. A said Mrs. B blamed her for damaging the ESB box because she was a” tinker.”

Evidence of Mr. A

Mr. A   gave evidence that when Mrs. B discovered he was a traveller, she hit him with a jeep and told his” tinker” children to get off her property – they reported the matter to the Gardai, but it was never investigated. He said that on the 16th.June 2023 they had complained to Mr. B about the fire box burning out and Mrs. B and her son showed up screaming and shouting at 2.00a.m. The witness said that Mrs. B blamed him for damaging the fuse box because he was a “tinker”. He said Mrs. B and her son were screaming and shouting about getting the” tinker out of the house “, about stealing from her bank account and damaging the property. He said the jeep reversed back and the mirror hit his hand. Mr. A said that Mrs. B came at him twice with the jeep. Mr. A said that Mr. B called the children” tinkers.”

Evidence Of Mrs. B:

Mrs. B set out an account of the events of the 16th.June 2023 – she said another incident had arisen on the occasion of the family moving out. She said it was very dark and she decided to drive down.

Mrs. B said that on the night in question the tenants had complained about the fire box and because it was so late and dark she drove down to the house with her son – she stayed in the car – Ms. A was at the door, Mr. A was at the back and her son got out with the side window of the car down – Mrs. B said she asked Mr. A was he a traveller and she said he proudly replied that he was. Mrs. B said that at this point, Ms. A put her head through the window and was screaming and shouting. Mrs. B said she had no agenda with Mr. A. The witness said she never used the word” tinker “– she said that” tinker” was a Scottish word. The witness said that when Mr. A proudly said he was a traveller, Ms. A became a raging bull. The witness said she reversed the car and went down the driveway. The witness said there was a lot of mess at the back of the house.

At the final hearing on the 27th.February, Mrs. B said she got on well with Mr. A; she said she had heard rumours about travellers, and she asked him if he was a traveller – she said she observed rubbish and mayhem at the house that night – the night of the 16th.June 2023. (Mr. B already submitted in evidence that Mrs. B knew he was a traveller from the outset when Mr. A signed the tenancy agreement). Mrs. B said no one should have treated her house like that – she maintained that a local authority Councillor agreed with her when she came to visit the property about the state of the house. The witness said that at her age – in her eighties – she did not want conflict.

Mrs. B asserted that she lived in location X  for 30 years and was involved with a voluntary group – a women’s network for the Travelling Community .When asked to describe the activities of the group , Mrs. B replied that they” met various groups” – she said” we listened to them and they listened to us” .

Evidence of Mr. B

Mr. B said that his relationship with Ms. A and Mr. A deteriorated when Ms. A made a series of false allegations against him referring to criminal activity, theft, drug dealing, and sexual assault. The witness  said he was not disputing that  comments  about travellers and the state  of the house were  made – he said his mother was only allowed to visit the  house on one occasion and Mrs. B   had been offended by that  .He said the Traveller comment was made in June or July 2023 when the state of the property was observed and they had no access to the house. The witness said the RTB had found that Ms. A had to pay money owed for rent but she refused to pay anything. He said the house was wrecked when the family left. When referring to the night of the 16th.June, Mr. B accepted that both he and his mother had been angry and submitted that this was understandable given the state of the house.

 The witness referred to calling to the house late on the night of the 16th.June 2023 as he understood that it was an emergency at the time. He said he accepted his mother was angry that night – he said “we were all angry” and that this was understandable.

Under cross examination by Ms. A, it was put to Mr. B that the respondent was found to have been in breach of their obligations regarding the standard and maintenance of the property by the RTB.

At the final hearing on the 27th.Feb. Mr. B   said that he went to the house on the 16th.June 2023 as he understood that it was an emergency at the time. He said he accepted his mother was angry that night – he said “we were all angry “and that this was understandable. He accepted that the property was described as a traveller’s tip. Mr. B referred to the question put to his mother by Ms. A about why she asked Mr. A was he a traveller. Mr. B  said that when Mrs. B  saw  the backyard she referred to travellers because of the state of the yard .He said that some travellers have the reputation of being untidy and that he had come across this in the UK – he said this did not apply to all travellers but that it applied to some of them .He said only one inspection of the property took place – he said the property was wrecked inside and out .He accepted that both he and his mother had been angry during this incident and submitted that this was understandable given the state of the house. He accepted that in the course of the exchanges between the parties the term a traveller’s tip was used.

Under cross examination Mr. B was questioned about the RTB’s findings and the upholding of the claimant’s complaint about the maintenance of the house. Ms. A submitted that the RTB had made no reference to untidiness when they criticised the standards and upkeep of the house and she questioned what being a traveller had to do with a messy house.

Submission of Ms. C:

The respondent furnished voluminous submissions in support of their defence to the complaints - the following submission (6th.June 2024) is an example of the respondent’s defence to the complaint. This was submitted by Ms. C.

“This statement is provided in support of the case. The purpose is to detail the circumstances in managing the issues related to our parents’ former home at location X which is let. Our Mother is 83 years old who has hearing difficulties and had last year bilateral cataract surgery. Who is unfamiliar with current technology therefore difficulty dealing with affairs independently. Mother is a carer for our sister who sustained a traumatic head injury as a victim of a RTA resulting in permanent brain damage from the age of 18.

 We would like to provide evidence regarding the case; my brother and I have assisted in many of the issues related to the rental property.

 We have correspondence showing our involvement in handling issues related to the rental property. Below is a detailed account of the situation and the steps taken throughout the tenancy period:

**Background and Property Condition: ** When initially marketing the property for sale, our estate agent discovered water damage in the living room due to a malfunction in the water tank located in the loft. This issue was promptly repaired, and the area was left to dry.

Decision to Rent

** Following the repairs, our estate agent advised that there was significant demand in the rental market. We decided to let the property. Upon returning, we discovered a leak around the chimney stack. Despite initial difficulties in finding a roofer, the repair was eventually completed.

**Preparation for Tenancy: ** Letting agents provided guidance on meeting safety standards, including installing fire alarms, fire blankets, carbon monoxide detectors, and safety window latches. We researched contract requirements and tenant referencing.

 We undertook improvements and updates to the facilities décor and lighting and updated the maintenance and deep cleaned the property in preparation for tenants. The property was let furnished.

**Tenant Selection and Initial Concerns: ** We eventually agreed to rent the property to tenants from another county. Although I had concerns about their employment status, I was assured that Mr. A one of the tenants, was a motor vehicle mechanic who would secure work upon arrival. They signed the lease, paid the deposit, and initial meter readings for electricity were taken and salt for water were explained. We also purchased landlord property insurance.

**Tenancy Issues:

** Shortly after moving in, the tenants requested numerous changes, including upgrading to a higher power oven, increasing washing machine capacity, and installing a tumble dryer as well as a dishwasher, which required re modelling kitchen cabinets. There were improvements and repairs made to the heating system, problems with the floor-standing oil heating boiler, which children tampered with. A request for fitting an outside tap was also granted.

 Access for tenants at site M to provide salt was agreed but the tenant contributed from the initial time period ceased. Access was granted for dog walking along the tarmac path along the perimeter for safety. A garage was requested but was not feasible due to high costs. Instead, we repurposed an old goat shed for storage. Additional requests for replacing furniture for larger pieces all of which were agreed. We addressed water supply issues by having it tested as the properties have the same water supply and by drilling a new underground well. The tenants were allowed to keep a dog or two; however, several dogs and puppies were being sold from the property.

 **Non-Payment of Rent: **

After 12 months, rent payments ceased. Despite providing our Irish bank IBAN multiple times, no payments were received. Ms. A claimed the funds were being held for authorities to sort out. If this was premeditated or not this is when the situation deteriorated as tents rights increase with time.

 **Investigation and Findings:

** Our investigation revealed that the tenants had not transferred the electricity account into their names, leading to significant bills sent to an agent instead of us. We also discovered that the references provided were from family members stepfather/aunt, which was not initially disclosed. As we were informed the previous landlord wanted them to leave for a family member to live. The tenants acquired a new car, televisions in each room, and high-tech gaming consoles, suggesting a misuse of funds. Additionally, caravans were parked on the property, accommodating extended family members.

 **Response - We addressed all concerns promptly, including electrical, water, and waste issues, by contacting relevant trades and companies. Unfortunately, correspondence between Ms. A and myself was selectively saved, with crucial communications deleted. Nonetheless, we have proof of timely compliance with arising issues. Given the above circumstances, the statement I have provided as evidence we request be considered in support to the case. We have diligently maintained the property and fulfilled our responsibilities landlords, despite the numerous challenges presented by the tenants. We are willing to provide further information if required. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Ms. C Daughter of Mrs. B.”

Direct Evidence of Ms. C

In her direct evidence Ms. C maintained that the IBAN number was furnished to the complainant side on numerous occasions. She said that when they enquired from the Local Authority if Ms. A had made a HAP application they were told Ms. A had not applied. Ms. C submitted that the claimant had submitted   text messages that were out of sequence and provocative and it was asserted that Ms. A had been   making statements that were unfounded and were not true. She said that Ms. A had blocked messages from the family.

Ms. C estimated that her mother returned to Ireland in May /June2023 – she said her mother had been back and forth on a few occasions. She said that the family would have happily allowed HAP but at the time, the tenants had refused to pay outstanding rent. The witness went on to say that the tenants had won their case at the RTB because her mother – Mrs. B – had nobody to represent her at the hearing of the matter. She referred to her mother not being I.T. literate and suggested this explained why Mrs. B did not fill forms.

In summing up Ms. C said that the claimant’s evidence was vague and stated that she would like to see the HAP applications that were submitted. She said there was no documents submitted to demonstrate when the Local Authority A HAP  application was closed and the Local Authority B HAP case was opened.

Findings & Conclusions

Discrimination and Discriminatory Grounds:

Section 1 of the Acts defines "prohibited conduct" as "discrimination against, or sexual harassment or harassment of, or permitting the sexual harassment or harassment of, a person in contravention of this Act".

Discrimination is defined in section 3 of the Act as less favourable treatment on grounds of one or more of the discriminatory grounds. The grounds cited in this case are race and membership of the Traveller Community. The Equal Status Act 2000, as amended by the Equality Act 2004, transposes the Racial Equality Directive (Directive 2000/43/EC), which addresses discrimination both in the workplace and in the provision of services, specifically including race and membership of the Traveller Community, including Roma. Therefore, the grounds cited in this case are underpinned in the Directive.

Burden of Proof:

Section 38A(1) of the Equal Status Act stipulates that "where in any proceedings facts are established by or on behalf of any person from which it may be presumed that prohibited conduct has occurred in relation to him or her, it is for the respondent to prove the contrary".

As outlined by the Labour Court in Southern Health Board v Mitchell [2001] ELR 201, the burden of proof in equality law requires the complainant to set out facts significant enough to raise a presumption of discrimination. In Valpeters v Melbury Developments [2010] ELR 64, the Labour Court stated that the complainant must establish facts from which discrimination may be inferred, noting that "mere assertions unsupported by evidence" cannot suffice to allow an inference of discrimination.

A Complainant  in an equality claim must address three questions: (1) whether they fall within a discriminatory ground, either currently, previously, potentially in the future, or by association; (2) whether they incurred less favourable treatment (direct discrimination); and (3) whether the less favourable treatment was "on grounds of" the discriminatory ground.

When considering the primary facts adduced by the Complainant I must take into consideration any contrary evidence of the Respondent, when determining whether the burden of proof should shift. In the Labour Court case of Dyflin Publications Limited v Spasic EDA0823, it was stated that: -

“…. the Court should consider the primary facts which are relied upon by the complainant in their proper context. It also indicates that in considering if the burden of proof shifts the court should consider any evidence adduced by the respondent to show that, when viewed in their proper context, the facts relied upon do not support the inference contended for by the complainant.”

Section 26 of the Act allows inferences to be drawn from a respondent's failure to provide "material information "("Material information" includes reasons for any act or omission, relevant practices, or procedures) and information about comparators. sought under section 21(2)(b) of the Equal Status Act, where it provides:

“If, in the course of an investigation under section 25, it appears to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission—

(a) that the respondent did not reply to a notification under section 21(2)(a) or to any question asked by the complainant under section 21(2)(b),

(b) that the information supplied by the respondent in response to the notification or any such question was false or misleading, or

(c) that the information supplied in response to any such question was not such as would assist the complainant in deciding whether to refer the case to the Director of the Workplace Relations Commission,

The Director of the Workplace Relations Commission may draw such inferences, if any, as seem appropriate from the failure to reply or, as the case may be, the supply of information as mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c).

In relation to harassment, section 11 of the Act provides:

 (1) A person shall not sexually harass or harass (within the meaning of subsection (4) or (5))

another person (“the victim”) where the victim—

5

( a) avails or seeks to avail himself or herself of any service provided by the person or purchases

or seeks to purchase any goods being disposed of by the person,

( b) …

( c) …

(2) A person (“the responsible person”) who is responsible for the operation of any place that is

an educational establishment or at which goods, services or accommodation facilities are offered to

the public shall not permit another person who has a right to be present in or to avail himself or

herself of any facilities, goods or services provided at that place, to suffer sexual harassment or

harassment at that place.

(3) It shall be a defence for the responsible person to prove that he or she took such steps as are

reasonably practicable to prevent the sexual harassment or harassment, as the case may be, of

the other person referred to in subsection (2) or of a category of persons of which that other

person is a member.

(4) …

(5) ( a ) In this section —

(i) references to harassment are to any form of unwanted conduct related to any of the

discriminatory grounds, and

(ii) …

being conduct which in either case has the purpose or effect of violating a person ’ s dignity and

creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for the person.

( b ) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) , such unwanted conduct may consist

of acts, requests, spoken words, gestures or the production, display, or circulation of written

words, pictures, or other material…

 Preliminary Matter of Jurisdiction

Notification Requirements:

As set out in Section 21(2) (a) the Act requires a complainant to provide notification of the complaint within 2 months of the alleged prohibited conduct or the last such occurrence and provide notification of an intention to issue a complaint. On the complaint form the claimant identified the date of occurrence of the last incident as the 7th.November 2023 but at the first hearing of the matter on the 28th.May 2024 she was unable to elaborate on the discriminatory treatment. At the hearing on the31st.March 2025, the claimant referred to the respondent’s unwillingness to sign up to HAP and the negative comments and name calling of her husband as a" dirty tinker and knacker”. In her direct evidence the claimant asserted that the respondent had been sent an ES1 on the 15th.Sept. 2023, the 24th.August2023 and on the 29th.Nov. 2023.The respondent denied receiving the first 2 ES1’s and accepted the ES1 sent on the 29th. Nov. 2023 was received in the post. I have considered the evidence of both parties on this matter and note  an acknowledged  lack of clarity and recollection about timelines in the evidence given by both  Mr. B and Mrs. B and I  note that Ms. C resided in the UK .I further note the claimant’s evidence that she had difficulty producing documentary evidence because they left the house in such a hurry. The claimant was consistent with respect to the matter of sending the ES1s on the 3 dates listed. I found Ms. A’s evidence, on the balance of probabilities to be more convincing than that of the respondents. I further find that I am entitled to draw inferences from the respondent’s failure to respond to the ES1’s .Accordingly , I am satisfied that the claimant  sent the ES1’s on the dates outlined above  and for the avoidance of doubt I am satisfied that the notification requirements set out in the Act were met by the issuing and receipt of the ES1 that  was sent by certified post on the 29th.November 2023. 

Cognisable Period

In the complaint form the claimant complained of discrimination arising from harassment on one or more of the discriminatory grounds.

 The grounds cited in this case are membership of the Traveller Community. The Equal Status Act 2000, as amended by the Equality Act 2004, transposes the Racial Equality Directive (Directive 2000/43/EC), which addresses discrimination both in the workplace and in the provision of services, specifically including race and membership of the Traveller Community, including Roma. Therefore, the grounds cited in this case are underpinned in the Directive.

The claimant’s complaint was received by the WRC on the 7th.November 2023.Accordingly to meet the time limitations set down in the Act the cognisable period for consideration of the complaints of the impugned behaviour is the 8th.May  2023 to the 7th.November 2023.The claimant had given evidence that at  this time , Mrs. B  had returned from the UK and discovered her partner Mr. A was a traveller. The claimant complained of ongoing discriminatory treatment from Sept. 2022 when they began renting the property to the termination of the tenancy. She and her partner highlighted the incident of the 16th.June 2023 when Mrs. B and her son came to the property in the early hours of the morning. I am satisfied that the claimant has met the time frames for the cognisable period laid down in the Act and accordingly I have jurisdiction to investigate this element of the complaint.

Findings in respect of the substantive complaint of Discriminatory Treatment and Harassment on the grounds of membership of the Travelling Community:

I find the claimant has been consistent in her evidence with respect to the events of the night of the 16th.June 2023 and the incidences cited of name calling of the parents and children. While Mrs. B and her son presented a benign account of the event they do acknowledge that an incident took place, that it took place very late at night and Mr. B acknowledged they were angry – allegedly because of the state of the property. They have sought to defend their behaviour on the grounds that:

In Mrs. B ’s case she was active some 20 years ago in a Traveller’s Community Group and

 in Mr. B’s case he submitted that he felt compelled to respond to an emergency situation

I did not find Mrs. B’s assertions that her former membership of a community group for travellers excused her version of events. Additionally, I do not accept Mr. B’s assertion that he was responding to an emergency situation. It is clear from the text messages submitted into evidence that Ms. A was requesting Mr. B to respond “in the morning” to the problems with the electricity box. I found Mr. A and Ms. A’s evidence of  hostile  behaviour to be  more persuasive and accept that the actions of Mr. B  and Mrs. B  in arriving at the family  house in darkness in the early hours of the morning  and in name calling and in  shouting in an  angry and hostile manner  to be more credible than the accounts given by either Mrs. B or her son. I found the evidence of Mr. A and Ms. A with respect to disparaging comments about” tinker children”,” tinker family”, “dirty tinkers” “traveller’s tip” and “knacker” to be convincing and disparaging of the Traveller Community. I find these comments constituted discrimination on the Traveller Community ground.  I accept on the basis of the evidence presented that accusations of stealing and damage to property were made in a hostile manner in loud voices late at night. I am satisfied that the actions of the respondent on that night and on the occasions referenced by the claimant in her submissions  fall within the definition of harassment and that it constituted unwanted conduct related to the family’s membership of the Travelling Community and that it had the effect of violating the dignity of the family and created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and defensive environment for Ms. A, her partner, and her children. I am also taking account of Mr. B’s admission that both he and his mother were angry and that offensive language e.g. “a traveller’s tip” were used.

I find the complainant has established a prima facie case of discrimination based on the grounds of membership of the Traveller Community and that this was not convincingly rebutted by the respondent.

I set out hereunder references from 2 Supreme Court judgements regarding the remedial nature of the Equal Status Act which allow a broad and expansive interpretation of its provision….“However, the far-reaching Equal Status Acts 2000-2018 (the “ESA”) goes beyond these EU directives,[1] prohibiting discrimination, harassment and related behaviour outside of the workplace, in connection with the provision of goods and services, the provision of accommodation and access to education, on ten specific grounds. In Kim Cahill v Minister for Education and Science,[2] which focused on the duty to make reasonable accommodations, the Supreme Court noted that while the ESA was not always easy to construe, it should be treated as being “remedial social legislation” aimed at levelling the playing field and, as such, “the Court is permitted to adopt a broad generous, purposive approach, in order to identify and give effect to the plain intention of the Oireachtas.”[3] O’Malley J in the High Court noted in the case of G v The Department for Social Protection [2015] IEHC 419 in determining that the provisions of the ESA could be applied to surrogacy related matters stated the following;- “ ….  that the Act is intended to cover a broad range of human life and activity, and that its overall purpose is to reduce the social wrong of discrimination based on improper considerations. Having regard to the principles applicable to remedial statutes, it should be construed widely and liberally.” (para 131) [4]”.

In light of these Supreme Court findings that the Equal Status Act can be construed as remedial social legislation and taking a purposive approach to the interpretation of the legislation, I find that I have jurisdiction to consider a complaint of discrimination by association further to Section 3(1)(b) of the Act. I am satisfied that the general nature of the complaint as set out in the complaint form remains the same and that no prejudice arises for the respondent.

 In the High Court Judgement in County Louth VEC -v- Equality Tribunal & Brannigan (2009) IEHC 370, Mr. Justice McGovern held: “I accept the submission on behalf of the respondent that the Form EE1 was only intended to set out, in broad outline, the nature of the complaint. If it is permissible in court proceedings to amend pleadings, where the justice of the case requires it, then a fortiori, it should be permissible to amend a claim as set out in a form such as the EE1, so long as the general nature of the complaint (in this case, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation) remains the same.”  Albeit held to be obiter by Supreme Court, these comments are widely regarded as settled law.

I note that in Section 11(5)(a)(i) that the reference of “related to “any of the discriminatory grounds is broad enough to capture discrimination by association.

I am satisfied that harassment is a specific form of discrimination as it constitutes less favourable treatment.

I confirm that s.3(1) (b) of the ES provides for protection against discrimination by association which occurs when a  person is treated less favourably by virtue of their association with a person who differs on one or more of the grounds such as on the basis of association with another person who is a member of the Traveller Community. I have concluded that the claimant was the subject of discrimination by association when she was treated less favourably by the respondent by virtue of her association with her partner Mr. A who is a member of the Traveller Community.

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 the Act.

Dated:  22/05/26

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Emer O'Shea

Key Words:

[1] Judy Walsh, European Network of Legal Experts in Gender Equality and Non-Discrimination, Country Report for Ireland November 2021 (including summary) on the Non-Discrimination Directives, p.4 (“Walsh,Country Equality Report - Ireland”).

[2] [2017] IESC 29.

[3] Ibid, para.45.

[4] [2015] IEHC 419 - Viz legal