discriminated by landlord?

Tina82

hi first time posting

i went to view an apartment. met with landlords sister as landlord works and lives in england. i was happy with apartment called landlord and told him i wanted to take it ..he requested letter of reference from my employer and a letter from the bank (which i supplied). he emails me a copy of the contract to sign and return to him along with the paperwork he has to sign for HAP. he emailed me the contract on a friday evening and we both agreed i would pay the deposit into his bank a/c on the monday. on the sunday i receive an email saying he is no longer renting the apartment. i try to contact him on his mobile ... no answer. i now see that someone else has moved into the apartment. i just feel a bit hard done by .... can i go further about this ?

Samuel T. Cogley

Yes you can make a complaint to the equality commission. I forget the name, they'll investigate and get back to you. However if I was the LL I'd use the following line.

"Ah yes double booked, we're so stupid, I'm very sorry."

That will likely be the end of it, but you never know how stupid someone is going to be with what they say.

Michael D Not Higgins

I'm sorry OP, it might be that you were discriminated against but the evidence might be too flimsy to do anything. Short of him stating he rented it to the other people because they didn't have HAP, it's hard to prove discrimination occurred.

gizmo81

Tina82 wrote: »

hi first time posting

i went to view an apartment. met with landlords sister as landlord works and lives in england. i was happy with apartment called landlord and told him i wanted to take it ..he requested letter of reference from my employer and a letter from the bank (which i supplied). he emails me a copy of the contract to sign and return to him along with the paperwork he has to sign for HAP. he emailed me the contract on a friday evening and we both agreed i would pay the deposit into his bank a/c on the monday. on the sunday i receive an email saying he is no longer renting the apartment. i try to contact him on his mobile ... no answer. i now see that someone else has moved into the apartment. i just feel a bit hard done by .... can i go further about this ?

I'm sorry for your situation.

You can report him to:

https://www.ihrec.ie

The IHREC will decide if your evidence is sufficient.

An email chain will stand in your favour.

Then it is up to him to prove he didn't discriminate.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

I'm sorry for your situation.

You can report him to:

https://www.ihrec.ie

The IHREC will decide if your evidence is sufficient.

An email chain will stand in your favour.

Then it is up to him to prove he didn't discriminate.

Could you point out where the burden of proof is shifted in legislation/at common law?

knipex

gizmo81 wrote: »

I'm sorry for your situation.

You can report him to:

https://www.ihrec.ie

The IHREC will decide if your evidence is sufficient.

An email chain will stand in your favour.

Then it is up to him to prove he didn't discriminate.

So its now guilty until proven innocent ????

gizmo81

Burden of proof is now enshrined in section 38A(1) of the Equal Status Acts and section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Acts which provide that where, in any proceedings, facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant “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”.

Samuel T. Cogley

gizmo81 wrote: »

Burden of proof is now enshrined in section 38A(1) of the Equal Status Acts and section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Acts which provide that where, in any proceedings, facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant “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”.

Okay I see where you're going but that's simply a statement of a similar principle to res ipsa loquitur. I'd submit that the OP scenario does not fit within that but your opinion will, no doubt, differ.

knipex

gizmo81 wrote: »

Burden of proof is now enshrined in section 38A(1) of the Equal Status Acts and section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Acts which provide that where, in any proceedings, facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant “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”.

Bit of a stretch using employment equality..

Under employment equality there are 9 specific grounds under which discrimination is prohibited. Just 9.

none of which are in play here..

Samuel T. Cogley

knipex wrote: »

Bit of a stretch using employment equality..

Under employment equality there are 9 specific grounds under which discrimination is prohibited. Just 9.

none of which are in play here..

HAP is a new ground under the Equality Act (IIRC) and this section is in the Equality Act as well as the employment flavoured one.

Tina82

I just want to ad I'm not 100% sure if the reason he changed his mind is due to HAP as he has other apartments rented and accepts HAP... but I understand it would be hard to prove that I have been discriminated against.

Samuel T. Cogley

Tina82 wrote: »

I just want to ad I'm not 100% sure if the reason he changed his mind is due to HAP as he has other apartments rented and accepts HAP... but I understand it would be hard to prove that I have been discriminated against.

Even assuming Gizmo's interpretation is correct, the fact he takes HAP will be fatal to your complaint I'd imagine. Sounds like genuine cross wires. ****ty of him not to phone and explain/apologise but when you're faced with draconian legislation, or the appearance of, sometimes it's best to just clam up.

Annasopra

Tina82 wrote: »

I just want to ad I'm not 100% sure if the reason he changed his mind is due to HAP as he has other apartments rented and accepts HAP... but I understand it would be hard to prove that I have been discriminated against.

Unfortunately if this correct - that he does accept HAP this would probably be seriously detrimental to proving discrimination.

Annasopra

If you want to pursue it further though you can go through the process of making a complaint

http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/What_You_Should_Know/Equal_Status/Eq_Status.html

Manion

Did you mention upfront that you are on HAP? Could it not be that your references actually fell through.

Tina82

Manion wrote: »

Did you mention upfront that you are on HAP? Could it not be that your references actually fell through.

Yes mentioned HAP from the get go. I'm on my own with 2 young kids so maybe he was a bit turned off by that idea ... but I'm only presuming that. Definitely no issue with reference... never even contacted my employer.

Del2005

knipex wrote: »

So its now guilty until proven innocent ????

Only criminals are innocent till proven guilty. Civil law is on the balance of probabilities.

Fian

gizmo81 wrote: »

Burden of proof is now enshrined in section 38A(1) of the Equal Status Acts and section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Acts which provide that where, in any proceedings, facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant “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”.

This does not mean what you assert - this does not mean that it would be up to this landlord to establish he did not discriminate. It will still be for the applicant to establish that he did.

gizmo81

Fian wrote: »

This does not mean what you assert - this does not mean that it would be up to this landlord to establish he did not discriminate. It will still be for the applicant to establish that he did.

Burden of proof is now enshrined in section 38A(1) of the Equal Status Acts and section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Acts which provide that where, in any proceedings, facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant “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”.

Cuddlesworth

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Yes you can make a complaint to the equality commission. I forget the name, they'll investigate and get back to you. However if I was the LL I'd use the following line.

"Ah yes double booked, we're so stupid, I'm very sorry."

That will likely be the end of it, but you never know how stupid someone is going to be with what they say.

Pretty much anything he says besides "she was looking for a HAP rental" would drop it straight away. New tenant offered more deposit, money, family friend, didn't want the wear of children etc.

Michael D Not Higgins

gizmo81 wrote: »

Burden of proof is now enshrined in section 38A(1) of the Equal Status Acts and section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Acts which provide that where, in any proceedings, facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant “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”.

Quoting the same piece of legislation does not support your argument in a debate on how that legislation is interpreted. The other posters are pointing out that the interpretation is different and you should attempt to demonstrate what level of facts establish "presumed... prohibited conduct has occurred".

To a lay person such as myself, the facts of this case don't support the above, particularly as the landlord rents other properties on HAP. If you have details otherwise you can share them.

Fian

gizmo81 wrote: »

Burden of proof is now enshrined in section 38A(1) of the Equal Status Acts and section 85A(1) of the Employment Equality Acts which provide that where, in any proceedings, facts are established by or on behalf of a complainant “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”.

I am not going to get into a back and forth on this with you - I honestly don't care enough whether I persuade you or not, so I am not going to waste my effort.

The reason this does not mean what you think is that the test for "facts from which it may be presumed prohibited conduct has occurred" has not been met simply by reason of the op being offered the apartment and then being told that it was not available after the landlord discovered she was on HAP.

It remains for the OP to establish that she was told the apartment was not available because she was on HAP.

gizmo81

Facts have to be established. No one here has facts.

Whether he rents one property, 10 or zero to HAP tenants doesn't mean he didn't discriminate against another HAP tenant.

All I said was once the facts of the case are established by the complainant or their representative, the respondent will have to defend himself.

I outlined the legislation that covers this though many tried to dispute it and I advised the OP to go to a place IHREC who can establish the facts

A gay person can be a homophobe.

"It remains for the OP to establish that she was told the apartment was not available because she was on HAP."

That's exactly what my posts says.

gizmo81

Instead of trying to dissuade the OP why don't you point her to people who can establish the facts.

Michael D Not Higgins

gizmo81 wrote: »

Instead of trying to dissuade the OP why don't you point her to people who can establish the facts.

MOD NOTE
The argument against your suggestion was that the evidence seems to not be supporting your assertion. Your only response was to quote the legislation again with extra bolded parts. This comes across as aggressive and is needless as it adds nothing to the discussion.

Please consider your responses to engage positively with all the forum's users.

Samuel T. Cogley

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Pretty much anything he says besides "she was looking for a HAP rental" would drop it straight away. New tenant offered more deposit, money, family friend, didn't want the wear of children etc.

I don't mean to be smart but if he did say something like - didn't want the wear of children - he'd immediately fall within the ambit of the provision quoted by Gizmo (What it's there for IMHO) on the family ground. As I say not meaning to be smart, but that's exactly the type of thing people do say and it lands them in it, sideways, with no paddle :pac:

Cuddlesworth

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I don't mean to be smart but if he did say something like - didn't want the wear of children - he'd immediately fall within the ambit of the provision quoted by Gizmo (What it's there for IMHO) on the family ground. As I say not meaning to be smart, but that's exactly the type of thing people do say and it lands them in it, sideways, with no paddle :pac:

Ha, I remember thinking that was stupid when I first read about it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if the wording changes the circumstances. In the above example it was clear it was because she was a mother and only for that reason, in the one I said, it was due to the business costs of increased wear.

Because you could take it one step further and simply claim that by charging more then HAP will give, you are discriminating against HAP tenants.

Michael D Not Higgins

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Ha, I remember thinking that was stupid when I first read about it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if the wording changes the circumstances. In the above example it was clear it was because she was a mother and only for that reason, in the one I said, it was due to the business costs of increased wear.

Because you could take it one step further and simply claim that by charging more then HAP will give, you are discriminating against HAP tenants.

No, the wording would still imply they weren't being rented to on the basis of having children and are therefore being illegally discriminated against.

Not being able to afford the rent isn't protected by legislation but should the landlord deliberately set a level of rent above market rate then that can be challenged.

http://www.ihrec.ie/your-rights/i-have-an-issue-with-a-service/i-have-an-issue-about-accommodation/

It is not discrimination for a landlord or other person to refuse to let you rent a property if you cannot afford the market rent. If you think the landlord is being unfair in setting or reviewing rent, or you have a dispute with your landlord, you can contact the Residential Tenancies Board.

Samuel T. Cogley

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Ha, I remember thinking that was stupid when I first read about it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I wonder if the wording changes the circumstances. In the above example it was clear it was because she was a mother and only for that reason, in the one I said, it was due to the business costs of increased wear.

Because you could take it one step further and simply claim that by charging more then HAP will give, you are discriminating against HAP tenants.

It would be indirect discrimination, as valid as the extra wear argument is.