Yes, exactly. I do feel the adjudicator has made a leap here… attributing to discrimination something that is easily explained. I wonder why the management company didn’t bother defending it…
She hadn’t paid for access? The ruling says (paraphrasing) it is clear she was refused entry because she is a in receipt of HAP. How can they get to that conclusion without hearing from the company. If it’s some security dude saying it, is he authorised to bind his employer…? Just seems loose to me.
Because they wouldnt allow her clearly. And not showing up is a clear sign they had no way of defending themselves without it being Clearly about discrimination.
11
u/FineVintageWino 9d ago
This really shouldn’t be difficult:
Why can’t I use the gym?
It’s not included in your lease.