Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About marmacc

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi, you might find this guide by Doug Paulley (over 40 cases won - my favourite being against the MoJ for failure to make adjustment during court proceedings!). https://www.kingqueen.org.uk/dart/
  2. Hi, This depends on how annoyed you are now. Quote PSED and section 20 of the Equality Act and UN CPRD and write to everyone . . . . but it sounds like they aren't listening. One more try? If your past that the only option would be legal. I am not sure PSED is the way forward here. I think it means a Judicial Review to enforce it so rather expensive etc. Ditto, UN CPRD is not relevant until you exhaust the in country legal system because the UN CPRD doesn't place obligations directly on the council, it places obligations on our government to make sue the council delivers on the CPRD. There was a talking cash machine cash from hungry which was covered by the CPRD. Its a much clearer case under section 20 (6) of the Equality Act. -http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20 Using this section you could if successful get an injunction to force the council to provide information in suitable format and compensation. Of course, all this is a load of hassle and stress for you in the first instance. That's why so many organisations just ignore these issues cross their fingers that people don't have the energy for court cases! Best of luck with whatever route you take.
  3. Hi Endorfin, I agree with you to date. Disabled people are not required to pay for RA's under the Act. The onus is on the service provider. The question of its being reasonable is an entirely different matter. The £150 is not compared in the context of the cost of the consultation, or even the cost of the treatment, but in the context of the resources available to them, so I would have thought it is reasonable in principle (note: so little case law makes this a guesstimate). Having said that, if you are going to pay for the actual surgery, you might find forcing them to pay for the interpreter just gets loaded back into the bill for the actual treatment. More importantly, I guess you would need an interpreter for the actual treatment before and aftercare so just thinking aloud - perhaps pay for it in consultation, get a fixed quote for the treatment and then request they provide the interpreter for the before and aftercare which will no doubt cost a lot more. This way, they wont be able to lump the cost in with the treatment? cheers
  4. Hi, I am guessing that someone edited my post as it previously named a law firm. I don't think I got a notice to say it had been edited. Should I have received this and am I breaching some sort of rule by naming them? I figured that lots of posts name businesses and so it would be OK.
  5. This is a clear breach of the equality act. They have had loads of time to sort the system or find a workaround. If you are really annoyed you could try (edit). They are the only solicitors I know who are prepared to work disability discrimination cases on a no win no fee basis. Hope you manage to get it sorted. Takes the micky,
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Page of this from the Equality and Human Rights Commission is a short summary https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/equality_act_summary_guidance_on_services.pdf If you want more, seek out the Statutory Code of Practice on the subject on the same website.
  9. 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 .
  10. Sorry obiter but you are wrong. Any private business that offers services to the public is covered, so Macdonalds and high street etc are all covered. See : http://www.unity-law.co.uk/our-work/disability-discrimination/high-street.htm
  11. 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.
  12. Has anybody actually had a look at making the building more accessible? As a physio's its safe to say that more people would be benefit than just you, and in any case if they offer services to the public they should have looked at if it is possible by now and implemented if 'reasonable' to do so under the Equality Act and its predecessor. Barrier removal should be the starting point. There are very few buildings which can't be made accessible and if they are a decent sized firm (multiple offices you said) they should have sorted this out long before now.
  13. Hi, There are two questions in my mind when I read about the issues at you home. 1) do you have to pay for it? 2) if you do, are there solutions which will make in manageable without breaking the bank. 1) I haven't been through the guidance under the Equality Act regarding common parts of shared ownership properties. Might be worth looking at it and contacting a solicitor such as Unity Law in Sheffield to see if they know. Of course, you might not want to use the law in these circumstances. 2) There are some solution that would mean the weight of the door is no longer an issue, with having to go to the expense of auto doors. Adjust the door closer pressure - free if you have a handy person ! if they have metal boxes fixed at the top, these are likely to be adjustable. Certainly any put in since 2001 should be. The current guidance on operating pressure for doors is 30 netwons of force for the first 15° of opening, and then 22.5 newtons for the rest. Approved Document M of the building regs specifies this. If the closers haven't been adjusted to this it they will be quite a bit heavier. If they have old floor mounter closers they can be a real pain! New door closer - you can now get a door closer that will stay open (when pushed past a certain point), operates at really low operating pressure when in 'free swing' and then when the fire alarm goes it will close regardless of what mode its in. Battery powered I believe. http://www.firecoltd.com/Fire/freedor.aspx - not sure on cost, probably a few hundred each I imagine. Doorguard - Holds the door open, battery powered, listens for a fire alarm and then releases the door when necessary. just over £100 each. http://www.firecoltd.com/Fire/dorgard.aspx For door thresholds, you could look at hardwood wedges, full length and fixed to the floor. For example if the threshold is 15mm, a 200mm long wedge would take the bite out of it. --------------------- PS - I am certain that the management company can not refuse a request for a 'reasonable adjustment' without proper grounds. If they do, they are on the wrong side of the Equality Act. Hope this all helps.
  14. Quick update: I emailed again on the 6th. Called on the 11th and was cut off when the guy realised it was not going to be easy. Note: the orange options when you dial in don't seem to include one for complaints/problems such as this and hence you end up with an upgrade person or similar. Followed up with email on the 11th. I got a call back from a very helpful lady from the Customer Services department called Paula on the 13th. Understood the issue and sorted it very quickly. In fact the next day I had a new 32gb phone delivered need and I paid less than oranges normal market rate in view of the hassle and poor service (close to new contract rate). Have to say, Paula was very good. Orange managed to tie me in for another 2years, making it 14 years now!
  15. Well it sounds like the original complaint is not disability related, but the process of resolving it seems to have taken far too for reasons related to disability. It shows they either lacked alternative formats, or staff training issues. When you say you want to take it further are you thinking as a disability issue, or your original complaint? Taking the disability element forward I guess you would need to show that you have suffered 'substantial disadvantage' - i.e. not been able to resolve your original complaint. The process of getting to this point may yield some 'loss' but I guess if you have been treated badly it will be injury to feelings based? You will need all your records if you want to pursue it. I should point out I am not a legal eagle and if you want to pursue this avenue you should get proper advice.
  • Create New...