Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good Evening, I've got a fairly simple question but I'll provide some context incase needed. I've pursued a company that has operations in england despite them having no official office anywhere. I've managed to find a site they operate from and the papers there have been defended so I know they operate there. They've filed a defence which is honestly the worst defence ever, and despite being required to provide their witness evidence, they have not and have completely ignored the courts and my request for copies of it. I'm therefore considering applying to strike out their defence on the grounds the defence was rubbish and that they haven't provided any evidence for the trial. However, it has a trial date set for end of june, and a civil application wouldn't get heard until a week before then, so hardly worth it. However, my local court is very good at dealing with paper applications (i.e ones that don't need hearings, and frankly I think they are literally like 1-2 days from when you submit it to when a Judge sees it. I'm wondering if I can apply to strikeout a defence without a hearing OR whether a hearing is required for a strikeout application.   Thanks
    • I have just opened another bank acc with lloyds (i have a few already) After doing some research they may have some relation to tsb or be apart of the same group will this cause me issue if my salary is paid into my lloyds account? Also, if the debts do go into default and nothing is paid then after 6 years it all goes away? As the DCAs cannot do anything? I do want to start paying in like 3/4 months or do you advise I leave it if it goes into default? again sorry for all the questions, i am just processing everything
    • one reply only  follow post 2 of letter of claim <<clickme link. dx
    • Sorry, I got confused  Yes, it states all three   Thanks, 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Accessible toilets


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2817 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

There are separate toilets in Bridport that are Men, Ladies and Disabled. The disabled have a notice outside saying these toilets are not for the sole use of disabled.

 

Whether that is standard or just a local thing I don't know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All that is required is that mobility impaired customers have accessible sanitary provisions. Usually the disabled person has a key fob to open the door or you get the key from reception.

 

They are normally kept locked to stop vandalism due to the mobility aids incorporated into that toilet cubicle. Quite a few places now double up as baby changing rooms as well as the toilet cubicles are larger than the standard

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering if it would be unlawful for a non disabled person to use a toilet specifically for a disabled person. I'm not thinking of the toilets that are only opened by a radar key just the ones that are always open in cafes etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Walkinthepark,

 

I am not sure I agree with some of the comments.

 

Provision of a wheelchair accessible WC is a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act, and duties are owed to members of the public. So, if a leisure centre there is a duty to provide, subject to the test of reasonableness.

 

Its difficult to help as you have not stated what your actual problem is. E.g. Are you saying that an accessible WC is not available to disabled people when needed? and presumably because it is being used by non-disabled people?

 

I think there is a duty to ensure that 'reasonable adjustments' are available. EG. kept clear of cleaning equipment for WC's, monitoring parking provisions etc. There are two difficulties that complicate the issue I think you are raising:

 

- some facilities only have one WC, used by everyone regardless of disability. Many coffee shops and smaller premises have this and its perfectly acceptable.

 

- determining who needs an accessible WC is not as easy as some would think. For example, some people with prosthetics will use to re-seat their limb/prosthetic. Some people with colostomy bags will use them due to proximity of WHB and pan, both of course disabled people.

 

If you are encountering issues gaining access to accessible WC's in a public building and suspect the facilities are being used by non-disabled people when there are other provisions available you should raise this with the management. They are at liberty to impose restrictions if needed, and of course, arguably required to as a reasonable adjustment under the equality act. If the provisions are being used by other disabled people and there simply aren't enough accessible provisions to cater for demand, then they should consider providing more, subject to the test of reasonableness.

 

Hope this helps. Please correct me if I have miss-understood the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leisure facilities will have Disabled access as they wil, or were under the control of the local authority like a public library. The will have carried out an impact assessment being a public authority

 

Where say in a McDonalds being a private company there is no compulsory legislation

 

Disbled toilets under the Equality Act are for employees as a reasonable adjustment with a private company, not members of the public

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not meant to push the issue but you are talking of public bodies such as local authorities. They have to provide disabled facilities under an equality impact assessment as their is a duty under the Equality Act 2010

 

As i have already stated High street shops are not covered under the act for members of the public with the Equality Act. If that was the case all private shops would have compulsory wheel chair access to even enter the establishment, ramps etc.

 

There is a differench for retailer to "Oblige" in making reasonable adjustments and actually a statutory duty. The code is voluntary on retailers unlike a public authority.

 

Under the current legislation in the UK the duty for private companies to provide toilets in Cafes and restaurants depends on the number of seats, how long they are open, does it sell alcohol, or even if pulic toilets are nearby.

 

There is a difference between a restaurant that opens late and sells products to be consumed and your local WH Smith.

 

Section 20 of the 1976 Local Government MIscellaneous Provisions Act, is that toilets SHOULD be provided if food and drink is being sold for consumption on the premises The simple fact is a private retail outlet does not have to provide welfare facilities unless the local authority demand it.

 

How do i know all this, i am disabled myself

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. Did you read the link I provided which is to a solicitors practice who have taken cases for failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act again a private restaurant, book shop and supermarket? Lack of a lift, not managing parking etc.

 

Those undertaking 'public functions' are also subject to section 149 of the Act, known as the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) but this is not the same as the broader duty on service provider, which does apply to the public and is statutory.

 

There are a few reasons why so much of the high street remains inaccessible.

 

1) the Equality Act Requires disabled people to take civil claims to enforce their rights, which few do.

2) many businesses simply pay off complaints and settle out of court when the issue is raised

3) lack of understanding of the law (by disabled people and service providers)

 

I don't intend to trade posts with you further, but I am happy my original post is correct if the original poster needs to discuss.

 

How do I know all this?

 

16 years of advising on the subject, an MSc in the subject, experience as expert advisor in civil claims on the subject etc etc etc .

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect it is fine to post inks to Guidance or codes of practice but what is needed is the actual legislation on the matter as a compulsory action. I myself have posted up the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act to give persuasion to my reasoning. As you well know a business can withdraw services if it can show an "Objective Justification" why such services do not have to be provided. That is my last word on the matter

 

There is a differece between guidance and what actually the law states in practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I see where we are at cross purposes. Talking about different legislation.

 

The original post was not about provision of WC's, to which I agree Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions are relevant for licensed premises, but about use of and management of existing accessible WC's, to which the Equality Act would apply, including for private organisations. See Part 3 of the Act - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

 

As I said, the Equality Act in respect of service provision is only enforced by individuals through civil courts.

 

It would be interesting to see a case where a service provider who could (financially, spatially etc - all factors of reasonableness) provide accessible facilities chose not to. Since incontinence is covered by the Equality Act as a disability a case could be made that provision is a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act. Haven't seen a case on this as yet but it could be very interesting in the right circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed about going slightly off topic and crossed wires. I am guilty of that and that was where the confusion originated from.

 

Being disabled myself i meet this discrimination everyday and getting any kind of acknowledgemnt, let alone justice is a constant barrier

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Accessibility seems to off the radar in this country and the past few years of government 'encouraging' business to meet legal obligations instead of forcing them to has been laughable. The recent House of Lords committee review of the Equality Act illustrates how poor it is very well.

 

Since the changes to legal aid a few years back there aren't even that many solicitors prepared to take claims for disability discrimination in relation to service provision.

 

Thank goodness for the likes of this chap https://www.kingqueen.org.uk/ - my favourite is when he sued the Ministry of Justice for not making a court accessible for a hearing about disability discrimination! and the solicitors I linked earlier. They seem to be the only people prepared to make case law and find out what the limits of the Equality Act actually are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An example i will give is an ATOS work capability assessment centre. No wheel chair access, doors that only open outwards . Being a public body this is indirect discrimination and putting physical barriers in the way of a disabled person.

 

If Goverment policy can get away with it by design, what hope is there for the disabled person in the general public domain??? But the response is always an oversight and a half hearted appology

Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back to the original question, no - there are no rules about who can use an accessible loo and who can't.

 

I commonly use them and outwardly look perfectly mobile. However, major spinal surgery has left me stiff and cumbersome at times. So, the extra space is appreciated. I'm not registered disabled, can walk / run / jump up and down if the mood takes me but occasionally I need the handles and space (and privacy).

 

I've even been challenged by someone who thought I shouldn't be using them, but a quick flash of my surgical scars soon shut them up. Disabilities aren't always visible or registered, and an accessible loo is just that.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To get back to the original question, no - there are no rules about who can use an accessible loo and who can't.

 

I commonly use them and outwardly look perfectly mobile. However, major spinal surgery has left me stiff and cumbersome at times. So, the extra space is appreciated. I'm not registered disabled, can walk / run / jump up and down if the mood takes me but occasionally I need the handles and space (and privacy).

 

I've even been challenged by someone who thought I shouldn't be using them, but a quick flash of my surgical scars soon shut them up. Disabilities aren't always visible or registered, and an accessible loo is just that.

 

+1

On a good day I can run 5 miles, but some other days I cannot squat unaided and can't wash my hands unless I lean against something or hold on to a fixed bar.

However I look strong and fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...