Gio

WRC rejects HAP discrimination complaint over failed apartment rental The Workplace Relations Commission has rejected a discrimination complaint brought by Lesley Mbuyi Kayembe against landlord Ruslan Shashkov after a dispute over the proposed letting of an apartment. The case arose after the respondent advertised an apartment for rent at €2,100 per month. The complainant had been approved for Housing Assistance Payment of €1,875 and claimed that the landlord unlawfully refused to rent the property to her because she depended on HAP. The complaint was brought under section 21 of the Equal Status Act 2000 and was heard by adjudication officer Brian Dalton on 9 February 2026. Ms Kayembe said there could be a short delay in setting up HAP payments to a landlord, but only for a few days. She said the landlord had initially agreed to rent the apartment to her and then changed his mind. She claimed that the refusal was directly connected to her reliance on HAP and said the loss of the accommodation left her facing homelessness. Mr Shashkov said he was renting out the apartment for the first time and had in fact agreed to accept HAP. He told the WRC that several people were interested in the property, that he liked the complainant, and that he offered the apartment to her. He said he had required a deposit at the first meeting and that the complainant said she could pay €1,000. According to his evidence, that amount was never produced. He said a lower amount was later offered, and he was prepared to accept that and allow the balance to be paid over several months, but he was not willing to let the furnished property without any deposit because he wanted protection against possible damage. In his findings, the adjudication officer accepted the landlord’s evidence and found it credible. He said the respondent was willing to accept HAP when the parties met on 15 March 2025. He found that the complainant made several offers to pay a deposit even though she had no funds available to do so, and that each failed offer changed the landlord’s view of the proposed tenancy. The adjudication officer found that the landlord had compromised on several occasions but eventually withdrew the offer because the complainant had repeatedly failed to honour the terms she had agreed to. He held that this was the reason the apartment was not let and that the withdrawal of the offer had nothing to do with HAP. The complaint was therefore found not to be well founded. The WRC held that the respondent had not engaged in prohibited conduct under the Equal Status Acts and that the refusal to proceed with the letting arose from repeated representations about a deposit that did not materialise. Lesley Mbuyi Kayembe v Ruslan Shashkov, ADJ-00060584