Avant Money has been ordered to pay over €8,000 to a man whose broker said he could not apply for a mortgage switch with the financial institution because he was over 70.
A motion by the lender's solicitor to have an anonymous decision in the man's equality case was rejected by the Workplace Relations Commission, which did not accept the argument that commercially-sensitive data would be revealed.
The tribunal was told that when the man complained directly to the lender about the refusal, its head of mortgage operations told him its policy "does not extend to offering a mortgage to applicants over 70" and that was its "final response".
That was despite the fact that Avant Money’s lending policy at the time did allow for an exception past this age "where repayment capacity can be proven" – a point highlighted in a legal submission by the complainant in the case, Michael Lane, who argued he was denied the opportunity to prove his financial position.
The tribunal upheld Mr Lane’s complaint of ageist discrimination under the Equal Status Act 2000 against Avantcard DAC, trading as Avant Money, in a decision published this morning.
Along with an order for compensation of €8,420 – half the interest Mr Lane would have saved if he had secured the mortgage he was seeking – the tribunal has also given Avant Money six months to carry out equality training in its complaints department.
The training order extends to senior staff and comes with a further direction to Avant Money to write to its brokers "to clarify the age policy".
In evidence to a hearing last December, Mr Lane said his broker had been "very clear" with him on 25 March 2021 that he could not apply for the Avant Money mortgage switching service "because he was over 70 years of age on the date of application".
He wrote to the lender the same day accusing it of a "breach of the equality legislation", he said.
The tribunal noted the lender’s reply – signed by its head of mortgage operations – that it was "normal practice" to have a policy on a loan’s maximum term and to set age limits.
"Unfortunately, our policy does not extend to offering a mortgage to applicants over 70 years of age," the department head wrote.
"We have now completed our complaints process therefore you may treat this letter as out final response to your complaint," the letter concluded.
The lender’s head of audit risk, Stephen Ryan, said it operates a "cautious approach" in mortgage lending.
He said most lenders had an upper age limit "around the normal age of retirement" and referred to other lenders’ policies – adding that there was Central Bank guidance in the area.
The firm’s interim head of compliance, David Caslin, said he had no direct dealings with Mr Lane’s correspondence until the matter was referred to the WRC – but insisted it "did not comply" as the complainant had not used the official ES1 complaint form, did not cite the Equal Status Act by its title, state the alleged grounds of discrimination, or refer to taking a complaint to the WRC.
He said if Mr Lane had said he would make a WRC complaint "it would have been fully investigated" – and argued the firm was "denied the opportunity to respond".
Mr Lane said there was "no doubt as to the meaning of his letter" – a position accepted by the adjudicator, Ms Glazier-Farmer, who said the case law was clear that the ES1 form is "not mandatory" and that "an ordinary letter will suffice".
Ms Glazier-Farmer noted that the letter was signed by a "very senior person in the respondent’s business stating that he has reviewed the complaint and provided a reason for his answer".
The signatory of the letter, Avant Money’s head of mortgage operations, did not attend the hearing to give evidence – and the adjudicating officer wrote that she would not accept "hearsay" from other company witnesses on the department head’s "thought process".
Ms Glazier-Farmer ruled that Mr Lane was "denied the opportunity to make an application" so that the lender could consider his financial position for a permitted exception.
She said this was "clear" from the response to Mr Lane by Avant Money’s head of mortgage operations in April 2021.
The lender could not "wash its hands of the broker" when it did not accept applications directly, and had produced no testimony or evidence on its relationship with the broker, the adjudicator wrote.
Nor had the firm made out the defence provided for in the Equal Status Act allowing differential treatment in respect of financial products when a risk assessment was involved, as there was no expert testimony or actuarial data sufficient to satisfy the legislation, Ms Glazier-Farmer added.
Although Avant Money had produced the other mortgage providers’ lending policies, there was no testimony to confirm these were current, she added.
A document sent in after the hearing by the firm’s head of credit risk was "a mere printout of death figures" and could not be relied upon as statistical evidence, she added.
She ruled Mr Lane was "treated less favourably by [Avant Money] on the grounds of his age by its refusal to allow him make an application for its mortgage switching service".
Ms Glazier-Farmer awarded €8,420 in compensation for the discrimination, a sum equivalent to "50% of what he would have saved in interest" if he had been able to put in an application and get the mortgage he sought.
She also ordered Avant Money to train staff and heads of department in its complaints department on the Equal Status Act within six months of 13 June 2023, the date her decision went to the parties.
