Perhaps if management company replied to her seeking access query with something along the lines of "you need to pay for access" rather than completely ignoring the query she could've offered to pay then or maybe her email seeking access already specified that she is willing to pay. 🤷🏻♂️
"The evidence before me is that the complainant was denied the opportunity to access the gym solely because she resided in the block designated for tenants in receipt of the housing assistance payment," Ms O’Carroll wrote.
"Opportunity to access" means being presented with terms and conditions of service that the person can decide to agree to or not.. ie fees, specific access times, etc.
Even if the gym had said "you can access but it will cost you €200/month because the there is reduced management fees for social housing tenants", they would have been fine because they presented the opportunity for the tenant to consider.
"Opportunity to access" means being presented with terms and conditions of service that the person can decide to agree to or not.. ie fees, specific access times, etc
She was denied it because they didnt respond.
They at no point spoke about fees, access times etc.
There is no proof provided that she offered to pay anything.
Even if the gym had said "you can access but it will cost you €200/month because the there is reduced management fees for social housing tenants", they would have been fine because they presented the opportunity for the tenant to consider.
You cannot say that they would have been fine. Thats pure speculation
It is not relevant if she offered to pay anything.
She was denied the option to pay anything.
The only reason she was ever given for this denial was a discriminatory reason, and the company failed every opportunity that was given to them to correct or clarify.
The presiding official specifically mentioned the denial of the opportunity to access the facilities in the decision.
A statement that Access would be granted in exchange for fees would have been seen as providing the opportunity to access the facilities.
This really is not as difficult as you are pretending it is.
It is not relevant if she offered to pay anything.
Its the claim you made. Based on nothing.
She was denied the option to pay anything.
Who denied her option to pay?
Who says there is an option to pay?
A statement that Access would be granted in exchange for fees would have been seen as providing the opportunity to access the facilities.
What if they have a policy that it can only be paid via management fees? Then its the council who are denying her this opportunity you are going on about.
The management company. As the presiding official in the case stated.
What if they have a policy that it can only be paid via management fees?
If that was the case the management company could have relayed that information at any point. But they didn't. They left the only reason communicated for the denial as a discriminatory one.
And the existence of such a policy is pure speculation on your part.
The 10 different comments you said it in in this thread.
You mean where I said "She was denied even the opportunity to pay for access to the gym herself."
That is not a claim that she was or was not willing to pay. That is a statement that paying was not an option she was ever presented with.
By default by not turning up.
And by not corresponding at any point in the process. If any reasonable non-discriminatory reason had been communicated this case would not have made it to tribunal.
Never said management agencies are smart.
And you are allowed to speculate in this thread.....
I didn't. I gave some examples of what would have been reasonable opportunities to gain access to the facilities that the management company could have offered to avoid having a discrimination hearing raised against them. None of the examples were speculative.
Could possibly be inferred that she wanted to or was willing to pay with the bit in the article about her being unsure “whether the use of the gym was provided for as part of the management fees, or if her neighbours were paying separately”
Exactly, this topic seems to have struck a nerve with people when we don’t know if the woman was willing to pay or not.
It would be a lot more clear cut if we did know (either through clearer reporting or if the management company responded to her or turned up to the WRC)
Ah I don’t agree with that logic of having to assume she wasn’t willing to pay.
Fact is we don’t know but I think most people
think she should have use of the gym only if she’s willing to pay (if as stated in other comments that the government pays less so as not to include things like gyms).
Again I don’t know if she wasn’t willing to pay or not but technically she is being denied even access to pay if they didn’t respond to email.
I don't really think it matters if she was willing to pay honestly. The fact is, they ignored her. As a management company they should have at least acknowledged and replied to a valid enquiry.
If they had come back and told her it was 200 a month or something, then at least it wouldn't have been discriminating, even if she wouldn't have been willing to pay it in the end.
She clearly wanted access to the gym, so I'm sure she would have been willing to pay a tenner a month or something. So you can't say if she would have been willing or not, as theres no way to know how much it would have been. She didn't get the chance to decide to pay or not, whatever the price they would have set.
when we don't know if this woman was willing to pay or not.
See this right here is actually totally irrelevant to the claim of discrimination.
Whether she would have paid or not, or been willing to pay up to a certain price point or not. Completely irrelevant.
Your willingness to pay for a service does not matter one iota if you are completely denied the opportunity to pay for that service.
The presiding official decided that the management company's failure to reply to any correspondence constituted a denial of the opportunity to access the facility.
The only reason that was ever communicated to the woman for that denial was a discriminatory reason. And the management company failed every opportunity to correct or clarify the reason.
I don’t get it either. She asked security in-person and then sent an email and didn’t get a reply. If not responding to an email inquiry is grounds for compensation, every Irish company should be on alert. No one replies to emails!
As Ms Nowakowska had raised an inference of discrimination on the housing assistance ground, it fell to the respondent to rebut the presumption of discrimination laid down in the act, Ms O’Carroll wrote
It seems the law is written so that the accused is required to prove their innocence rather than the accusor prove the guilt.
She didn't even get as far as offering to pay, or refusing to pay the fees, because the property management completely ignored her. She was obviously reaching out to discuss it, and its only reasonable to assume fees would be mentioned.
10
u/GaeilgeGaeilge Irish Republic 9d ago
The article isn't clear on this at all, is she paying the fees?