A landlord has been ordered to pay €3,000 in compensation to a renter for refusing to accept the housing assistance payment (Hap), after a settlement deal collapsed when she decided to pay an agreed sum in instalments of €50.
The landlord told the Workplace Relations Commission she had learned the complainant had taken another case and “did not want to pay money to someone who could take as many cases as they wanted”.
She wrote to the housing charity Threshold, which represented the man in the case, accusing it of “enabling criminality” – with the charity then receiving a phone call from gardaí about its client, the tribunal was told.
The commission has now ordered Barbara O’Donnell to pay €3,000 in compensation to David Blanchard after upholding his complaint of discrimination on the housing assistance ground under the Equal Status Act 2000 in a decision published on Tuesday.
Katie Taylor v Amanda Serrano: TV details, fight time and all you need to know
Paul Howard: I said I’d never love another dog as much as I loved Humphrey. I was wrong
Show Clint Eastwood some respect. His new film Juror #2 is no dud
Reusable cloth nappies vs disposables: would you put €500 a year in the bin?
The tribunal was told that on January 13th, 2021, Mr Blanchard’s partner Leanne O’Doherty sent an email answering an online advert saying that the couple were interested in renting a house in Limerick from Ms O’Donnell.
“Do you accept Hap? I’m currently in receipt of Hap and have deposit and first month’s rent immediately… If you can get back to me, thank you,” Ms O’Doherty wrote.
The response the same day read: “Sorry I don’t accept Hap,” the tribunal was told.
Mr Blanchard said that at the time they went house-hunting, he and his partner were living with his parents and had one child, with another baby on the way.
Evidence was presented that Threshold served Ms O’Donnell with the Equal Status Act statutory notification form ES1 on March 8th that year, stating: “Refusal to accept a tenant who relies on housing support amounts to discrimination under equality legislation.”
Ms O’Donnell’s written response to the complainant later that month stated that the house was in a “student area” and was “unsuited to families”.
Previous tenants had “constantly contacted her about the noise and behaviour of students”, she wrote.
She added that she believed Hap was a “non-runner” as the house needed a new boiler.
The landlord added that she did not know that she could not refuse a tenant on the grounds that they were in receipt of Hap.
The WRC adjourned the matter at a hearing in August 2021 to allow the parties enter into settlement talks – but the following month, Mr Blanchard asked the WRC to press on with the adjudication of the claim.
Mr Blanchard’s position was that Ms O’Donnell had “failed to honour” the settlement agreement.
In her evidence, Ms O’Donnell said she had agreed to settle but had learned that Mr Blanchard had taken a case against another landlord.
She said she “did not want to pay money to someone who could take as many cases as they wanted” – having been told by a solicitor and gardaí that there was a “loophole” in the law permitting this.
The landlord said she was willing to pay in €50 instalments to cover the undisclosed sum, but that when she made a first payment it was returned.
However, under cross-examination she said she did not look for agreement from Mr Blanchard to change the terms of the settlement deal so she could pay in instalments.
She said she then wrote to the Threshold representative on September 1st, accusing them of “enabling criminal activity” by representing Mr Blanchard.
Mr Blanchard said he was “shocked that the respondent accused him of being a criminal”, adding that following Ms O’Donnell’s allegations, gardaí had phoned the housing charity about him.
He said that he had only made one other complaint against a landlord alleging discrimination on the grounds of housing assistance.
Adjudicating officer Louise Boyle noted the respondent’s evidence that she had turned down Mr Blanchard’s application because the neighbourhood was a student area and would be unsuitable for the family.
However, she wrote that Mr Blanchard’s evidence was “more credible” and that he had established a prima facie case of discrimination which the landlord had failed to rebut.
She ordered Ms O’Donnell to pay him €3,000 in compensation for the effects of the discriminatory treatment.