Tenant who ended up in emergency accommodation after landlord refused HAP awarded €15k

Seán McCárthaigh

A landlord has been ordered to pay €15,000 compensation to a Romanian woman who has ended up living in emergency accommodation after he refused to accept a Housing Assistance Payment towards the cost of her rent.

The Workplace Relations Commission ruled that the landlord, Sherman Chan, had breached the Equal Status Act 2000 by discriminating against his tenant, Olga Burla.

The landlord had denied discriminating against Ms Burla and claimed he had adopted a fair and measured response to many complaints about anti-social behaviour in her apartment.

The WRC heard Ms Burla, who comes from Romania, became a tenant of the property in January 2022 when her rent was €1,650 per month.

However, Ms Burla required assistance to pay her rent in January 2024 after a change in her family circumstances when she became a single parent.

She explained that her landlord told her in April 2024 when she asked Mr Chan about applying for HAP that he did not want to accept it as he wanted to sell the property.

Text messages

The WRC was provided with text messages which showed that the landlord also said he did not want to accept HAP as the value of the property would go down.

Ms Burla said she continued to pay the rent although it was difficult as she had to both work and take care of her children.

She said Mr Chan again refused to accept HAP in January 2025 and she received a valid notice to quit in the same month.

She had previously been issued with two other notices to quit which had been declared invalid by the Residential Tenancies Board.

The WRC heard that she left the property in August 2025 and is currently living in emergency accommodation.

Under cross-examination, Ms Burla accepted that the landlord had received complaints about anti-social behaviour at the property but claimed that her neighbours did not want her living there.

However, she said she had never received a notice to quit in relation to anti-social behaviour.

In a submission on behalf of Ms Burla, a representative of the housing charity Threshold said the tenancy had not been registered for two years.

HAP discrimination

The WRC heard the landlord’s failure to accept HAP was discrimination which had a significant impact on his tenant in terms of stress and hardship as she had suffered total losses of €22,109.

In evidence, Mr Chan claimed he had received complaints from the property management company in January 2023 about the tenant’s behaviour in relation to excessive noise at all hours of the day and night.

He said there was a serious incident in September 2023 involving Ms Burla’s daughter which had resulted in her apologising for the actions of her teenage children as well as another complaint in December 2023.

Mr Chan said he issued her with the first notice to quit in January 2024 for the reason he wanted to sell the property.

He said he did not cite anti-social behaviour as the reason as he wanted to be fair to her as that would have involved a shorter notice period.

Mr Chan said he believed that the local authority would take over the apartment and he would have to sign a new lease with the council if he accepted HAP which would undervalue his property.

He told the WRC that he now knew different after receiving legal advice.

Mr Chan also accepted he was unfamiliar with the HAP system and confused about how it operated when he had been asked to accept the payment by Ms Burla.

In a submission, Mr Chan’s lawyer, Denise Biggins, said her client was a new entrant to the rental market who had shown compassion to his tenant by not putting anti-social behaviour as the reason for issuing her with a notice to quit as well as being agreeable to accept weekly payments of rent.

The WRC heard he first registered the property with the RTB in 2024.

Evidence

In his ruling, WRC adjudication officer, John Harraghy, said there was prima facie evidence from text messages that Mr Chan had refused to accept HAP on a number of occasions.

Mr Harraghy observed that Mr Chan had no knowledge of the rental market when he let his property but stated that ignorance of the law was no excuse.

The WRC official said Ms Burla’s evidence was “credible and cogent”, while he also accepted that the landlord’s sympathetic approach to her was “well-intentioned.”

However, Mr Harraghy said he had no basis to justify his refusal to engage with the HAP process.

The WRC made the maximum award under the legislation of €15,000 due to the hardship and stress suffered by the tenant and ordered the compensation to be paid within 42 days.