MLRC welcomes Equality Tribunal decision that rent supplement policy must not discriminate against unmarried or separated fathers, 16/12/13

MLRC welcomes the recent decision of the Equality Tribunal, that rent supplement policy must not discriminate against unmarried or separated fathers.  In Mr A v Community Welfare Service, Department of Social Protection (DEC-S2013-010) the Equality Tribunal upheld Mr A’s claim that the Community Welfare Service and the Department of Social Protection had discriminated against him, contrary to the Equal Status Acts 2000 to 2012, on gender, civil status and family status grounds in refusing his application for rent supplement at the family rate.

This case is important as the Tribunal made clear that the respondents’ policy that where parents don’t live together, rent supplement payment at the family rate is only given to one parent, save in exceptional circumstances, as implemented here, constituted direct and indirect discrimination.

The Tribunal awarded the maximum award of compensation (€6349) and ordered the respondent to review its policies and procedures in relation to rent supplement/housing assistance payment to ensure that they are in compliance with the Equal Status Acts with particular reference to how unmarried/separated fathers are treated.

MLRC welcomes the decision as bolstering the ability of single fathers to access appropriate housing which is suitable for their children, which allows them to maintain family life with their children. In its decision, the Tribunal noted that the right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights encompasses, as a fundamental part, the mutual enjoyment by a parent and child of each other’s company and that domestic (State) measures which hinder that enjoyment amount to an interference with that right.  The Tribunal noted here too the High Court’s recognition in MacB v BAG (Barron J, unreported, High Court, 6 June 1984) of that it is essential that “the children know that they have a father and… that their father is able to take the place of a father in their lives.”

A summary of the decision will be available on our website shortly.

The full decision is available on the Workplace Relations website: http://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/Cases/2013/October/DEC-S2013-010.html

Disclaimer

All information provided on this Blog is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal contract between this Blog and any person or entity unless otherwise specified. Click here to read more.

Advertisements

MLRC succeeds in High Court judicial review, 5/12/13

High Court quashes local authority decision not to transfer MLRC’s client to other local authority accommodation based on “exceptional social grounds”

On 4 December 2013, the High Court gave judgment in Zatreanu & Ors v Dublin City Council.  In this case, MLRC, on behalf of its client, Mr Zatreanu, had sought judicial review of Dublin City Council’s decision not to grant MLRC’s client application to transfer to other local authority accommodation based on “exceptional social grounds”.  The case raised important questions regarding the local authority’s obligations in deciding on our client’s application to transfer to other local authority accommodation on “exceptional social grounds”.

MLRC’s client had applied to Dublin City Council for a transfer due to severe harassment suffered by MLRC’s client and his family.  Dublin City Council had refused the transfer on the basis that the issues of harassment were matters for the Gardaí.

The High Court, Hedigan J, found in favour of MLRC’s client quashing the decision of Dublin City Council to refuse his transfer application and returning it for a new decision by the Council.

The case is important in that it clarifies that in deciding on an application to transfer on exceptional social grounds the local authority must have regard to an applicant’s complaints of harassment.

MLRC would like to thank Siobhan Phelan BL and Feichín McDonagh SC who, pro bono, successfully represented our client.

A summary of this case and a copy of the judgment will be available on our website shortly.

Disclaimer

All information provided on this Blog is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a legal contract between this Blog and any person or entity unless otherwise specified. Click here to read more.