Case Number: ADJ-00012771. Workplace Relations Commission.
| Docket Number | ADJ-00012771 |
| Hearing Date | 06 December 2018 |
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| Court | Workplace Relations Commission |
| Parties | Abdullah O'Fayoumi v Mr Sean Walsh |
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint. The hearing was originally scheduled for 4 October 2018 where the Respondent was not present due to ill health. A second hearing day was scheduled for 6 December 2018. The Respondent again failed to attend however, he was legally represented at the hearing and there was no adjournment application so I proceeded to hear the complaint.
Background:|
The Complainant is a job-seeker and claims that he rented accommodation from an auctioneer on behalf of the Respondent. He said that he was requesting to have documents signed in relation to the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) scheme and was told by the Respondent that he would not sign them and that he had to leave. The Respondent in submissions to the WRC stated that the Complainant acquired the property to rent through false pretence, was asked to leave and became very difficult to deal with and had looked for compensation to leave. |
|
Preliminary matter
The Complainant, in reply to the Respondent’s claim that the complaint was lodged incorrectly under section 81(e) of the Pensions Act, 1990 and not the Equal Status Acts, said that he is not an Irish national or a legal professional and that he used the Workplace Relations Commission forms to lodge his complaint and that the narrative on the form sets out his case and he would like that to be considered.
Substantive matter
The Complainant said that he is a job-seeker and is entitled to social welfare payment. On 25 September 2017 through an auctioneer he rented accommodation belonging to the Respondent. He said that at the start the auctioneer promised to sign the Department of Social Protection forms. However, after numerous reminders about the forms he met with the auctioneer who directed him to the Respondent, the landlord.
The Complainant said that he contacted the Respondent, who told him that he previously had bad experiences with people claiming Social Welfare funding and that he needed time to consider if he would sign the forms or not. Consequently, the Complainant said that the Respondent informed his wife that he was no longer looking after the property and that the Complainant should contact the auctioneer.
The Complainant said that he was going between the auctioneer and the Respondent regularly, looking for the forms to be signed and he was feeling severely worried, exhausted and extremely stressed. He said that he felt that he had no option but to send notification in accordance with the Equal Status Acts, 2000 – 2015 that he felt he was being discriminated. He said that he was approached by the auctioneer and told to leave the accommodation within a week, otherwise he and the Respondent were going to evacuate him for anti–social behaviour.
He said that the Respondent visited him and told him to stop dealing with the auctioneer that he was the landlord and he promised to find a solution. The Complainant claims that the Respondent suggested paying him €1,800, the amount equal to that supposed to be paid to him by the Department of Social Protection, and that he would return his deposit if he accepted in writing to leave the accommodation by the end of January. The Complainant was frustrated but accepted the offer and started to look for alternative accommodation.
He claims that he left the property and after numerous visits to the Respondent subsequently he never got what was agreed so he took the complaint to the Workplace Relations Commission for adjudication. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
|
The Respondent was not in attendance and did not seek an adjournment. The Respondent’s Solicitor on instruction from the Respondent raised the following points. Preliminary matter The Respondent’s Solicitor said that the case before the Workplace Relations Commission for consideration was lodged under section 81(e) of the Pensions Act, 1990 as amended by the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004. Therefore, the case made out under the Equal Status Acts is not before the Workplace Relations Commission, and I have no jurisdiction to consider the matter.
Substantive matter
The Respondent’s Solicitor presented his defence of the case primarily on the direct evidence from the auctioneer, as referenced above, who said that he had worked closely with the Respondent on this matter.
The Respondent’s witness said that the Complainant’s wife was the person seeking the accommodation and it was her name that appears on the Lease. He said that suddenly the Complainant took over the house and his wife seem to move away. He said both the landlord and the auctioneer became concerned as the Lease was in the Complainant wife’s name and not him. He said the Complainant presented documentation from the Department of Social Protection looking for it to be signed. He became very aggressive and hostile. The Witness said since neither he nor the Respondent had a contract with the Complainant they could not complete the documents and so started the problematic relationship with them and the Complainant until he left.
The Witness produced what he claims was a copy of the original lease agreement and the Complainant’s signature is not on it. He claims that the document was signed without the Complainant present. |
Findings and Conclusions:
|
In accordance with Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000 following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I enquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present any evidence relevant to the complaint. I heard the submissions made by the... |
To continue reading
Request your trial