Me vs Big Supermarket (DDA Claim)

[Janet-M]

You have discounted anyone without a blue badge as disabled.

1 Meaning of “disability” and “disabled person”

 

(1) Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1, a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

(2) In this Act “disabled person” means a person who has a disability.

 

broken leg doesn't seem to be counted under the DDA .. but you could always take it up with your MP if you think it should be included .. a blue badge is a long established acceptance of confirming someone is disabled as far as parking goes.

 

a grovel is not needed

[legalpickle]

Don't stop it now - all I need to see is something that will convince me that someone with a broken leg is not disabled and not entitled to use a parking bay that says "Disabled parking only".

 

If that is forthcoming then I will be the first to grovel.

 

Read Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) - I've even linked to the correct page for you, so that you don't need to search too far, it's in the first paragraph. That's in the middle of the page, between the menu on the left and the search, feeds and other menu on the right and below the header, header menu and links to the other pages, in case you're having any difficulties looking

 

It clearly defines somebody who is disabled as somebody who " has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities."

Somebody who has a broken leg does not necessarily fit these criteria!

 

Somebody who fits the above criteria is entitled to a blue-badge thus somebody without a blue-badge is either not disabled or has not applied for a blue-badge for stupidity, laziness, forgetfulness or incompetence!

 

Now please can we have pictures of you groveling?!?!?!

 

Note: My post was being written at the same time Janet posted hers. I wasn't intending to double the posts. Though, I would like to see Conniff groveling.

Edited August 27, 2008 by legalpickle
disclaimer

[seftonview]

Thank you seftonview. I have read through it and can see no mention at all of 'blue badges', however, the very first line reads:

 

19.

Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services.

— (1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person

 

You have discounted anyone without a blue badge as disabled.

 

Have I? Please point me to such a statement. I mean specifically a link to the full post, just so you don't quote me out of context.

 

I concede that I have stated someone without a broken leg is not disabled within the DDA. Would you disagree? Please point to any reliable medical source that indicates a broken leg has a prognosis of longer than four months. The DDA requires a problem to have lasted, or be likely to last at least twelve months to be protected under the act, save a few exceptions (such as cancer). Alternatively, point to some case law showing a broken leg counts as disability under the DDA.

 

I also concede that I have said that a person is only entitled to use a disabled space as a provision of a reasonable adjustment if it prevents substantial disadvantage for a reason relating to that persons disability.

 

20 -(1) For the purposes of section 19, a provider of services discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a)

for a reason which relates to the disabled person’s disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and

 

(b)

he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified.

 

 

If a person has a disability that requires them to use a disabled parking space, they are entitled to a blue badge. Anyone choosing not to apply for one acts of their own perogative.

 

If they have no blue badge, I contend it likely to be reasonable to refuse them access to a space, because the justification in doing so is that they cannot demonstrate they are a disabled person within the meaning of the DDA. However, if they can by alternate means, they are able to park there. There is further justification in that in failing to have effective enforcement the service provider discriminates against those who are disabled within the act and cannot show this to be justified, which opens him to legal liability (ie. me suing their ass)

 

Addition: for clarification, possession of a walking stick/wheelchair/limp is not adequate proof. I'm talking medical note confirming status under the DDA, being known to the service provider, disability being of obious compliance (e.g., a double amputee would be credible of their own recognisance)

 

Don't stop it now - all I need to see is something that will convince me that someone with a broken leg is not disabled and not entitled to use a parking bay that says "Disabled parking only".

 

If that is forthcoming then I will be the first to grovel.

 

Unless you happen to be a District Judge sitting on petition of my complaint, I'm not obliged to convince you of anything, and you'd be well advised to remember that.

 

That said, again please point me to where I have said a person with a broken leg is [not] disabled. I dare you to try without misquoting me. What you will find is that I've stated they aren't disabled under the DDA, which has been demonstrated. If a service provider decides to help someone not disabled under the DDA that is commendable, but not if it results in discrimination against someone who is. If you aren't happy with that, please feel free to petition your MP for widening of the discrimination laws.

 

Anything else, Guv?

Edited August 28, 2008 by seftonview
missed a key word; further edit to remove erroneous implication judiciary sit before claimants

[Janet-M]

.

 

snap

[legalpickle]

I concede that I have stated someone without a broken leg is not disabled within the DDA. Would you disagree? Please point to any reliable medical source that indicates a broken leg has a prognosis of longer than four months. The DDA requires a problem to have lasted, or be likely to last at least twelve months to be protected under the act, save a few exceptions (such as cancer). Alternatively, point to some case law showing a broken leg counts as disability under the DDA.

 

Addition: for clarification, possession of a walking stick/wheelchair/limp is not adequate proof. I'm talking medical note confirming status under the DDA, being known to the service provider, disability being of obious compliance (e.g., a double amputee would be credible of their own recognisance)

 

That said, again please point me to where I have said a person with a broken leg is [not] disabled.

 

 

For the sake of being complete there are occurrences where a person with a broken leg could be classed as having a physical impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

 

It is relatively rare, most people who have a broken leg don't, but it is possible that a broken leg could be caused by something that did not have substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities but the results of the broken leg would be a start of degenerative disorders, or other medical conditions. This is purely a medical example [one of several] to make clear that not everybody with a broken leg is not classed as disabled under under the Act, some are, but most are not.

 

Semantics - but that's my middle name.

Edited August 28, 2008 by legalpickle
stupid spelling error

[Janet-M]

Semantics - but that's my middle name.

I thought it was Al

[seftonview]

For the sake of being completion there are occurrences where a person with a broken leg could be classed as having a physical impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

 

It is relatively rare, most people who have a broken leg don't, but it is possible that a broken leg could be caused by something that did not have substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities but the results of the broken leg would be a start of degenerative disorders, or other medical conditions. This is purely a medical example [one of several] to make clear that not everybody with a broken leg is not classed as disabled under under the Act, some are, but most are not.

 

Semantics - but that's my middle name.

 

I disagree (sorry, putting my medical student cap on here).

 

By its definition a broken leg is not a disability under the DDA. A broken leg will heal in about three months, give or take a few weeks depending on the person. Seperate complications may arise, such as osteoarthropathy, or even something a little more remote such as chronic fatigue syndrome, but they are disabilities in their own right.

 

The distinction is quite important because protection only applies to a disabled person for reasons relating to their disability.

 

If a person can't walk because they have a broken leg they arent disabled under the DDA, if the fracture causes (or worsens) arthropatic disorder or another condition, that condition may be disability under the DDA.

 

However, again it is sematics because if they were disabled under the DDA because of a broken leg (which as stated stictly speaking isn't possible), they would be entitled to a blue badge anyway.

 

Back to topic!

[legalpickle]

I disagree (sorry, putting my medical student cap on here).

 

By its definition a broken leg is not a disability under the DDA. A broken leg will heal in about three months, give or take a few weeks depending on the person. Seperate complications may arise, such as osteoarthropathy, or even something a little more remote such as chronic fatigue syndrome, but they are disabilities in their own right.

 

The distinction is quite important because protection only applies to a disabled person for reasons relating to their disability.

 

If a person can't walk because they have a broken leg they arent disabled under the DDA, if the fracture causes (or worsens) arthropatic disorder or another condition, that condition may be disability under the DDA.

 

However, again it is sematics because if they were disabled under the DDA because of a broken leg (which as stated stictly speaking isn't possible), they would be entitled to a blue badge anyway.

 

Technically, you're right and I admit I could and should have worded it better.

 

The point I was making - irrelevant, I admit - is that a leg that is broken could cause - and be caused by - a disability that is classed as a long-term substantial disability for the purposes of the DDA thus some people with a broken leg are disabled under the DDA - though most are not.

 

Back to topic!

 

edited

Edited August 28, 2008 by jonni2bad

[seftonview]

Technically, you're right and I admit I could and should have worded it better.

 

The point I was making - irrelevant, I admit - is that a leg that is broken could cause - and be caused by - a disability that is classed as a long-term substantial disability for the purposes of the DDA.

 

I was pointing out that not everybody with a broken leg is not disabled under the DDA which I think you'll agree on.

 

I'd go further, none of them are.

 

I think I can see what you're trying to convey though. If a person already has a disability that puts them at risk of falls or such the like, it could put them at risk of broken leg, which could invoke the principle of discrimination for reasons relating to disability, though personally I think the connection is quite remote and would not be considered reasonable de jure.

[legalpickle]

I'd go further, none of them are.

 

I think I can see what you're trying to convey though. If a person already has a disability that puts them at risk of falls or such the like, it could put them at risk of broken leg, which could invoke the principle of discrimination for reasons relating to disability, though personally I think the connection is quite remote and would not be considered reasonable de jure.

 

 

I've since clarified my post - I have the habit of writing things in confusing manners, sorry, one of my many disabilities .

 

You've hit one nail on the head, but there are two others. 1) Somebody falls and breaks a leg, it can cause further disabilities - though in most it won't. 2) Somebody trips a trip that would cause most people grazes and maybe some bleeding, but he breaks a leg. That could be the start of a condition that shows up at that time.

 

I was not claiming those as reasons for discrimination. I was clarifying the point that not all, but most people who break a leg are not disabled under the DDA, but wanted to make clear that it was not all.

 

edited

Edited August 28, 2008 by jonni2bad

[Janet-M]

Sorry you have had bad news LP .. but I still wouldn't lower your usual excellent standards to the level of some others

[seftonview]

You've hit one nail on the head, but there are two others. 1) Somebody falls and breaks a leg, it can cause further disabilities - though in most it won't.

 

In which case the new condition may be disability under the DDA, but the broken leg itself isn't.

 

2) Somebody trips a trip that would cause most people grazes and maybe some bleeding, but he breaks a leg. That could be the start of a condition that shows up at that time.

 

True, but the break itself isnt disability under the DDA. The new condition wouldnt be disability under the DDA until either (i) it has had substantial and adverse effect for at least twelve months or (ii) clinical findings efficiate that it is likely to last for at least twelve months.

 

Bringing this into line with the hypothetical circumstances being discussed, at the point a person has a broken leg they aren't disabled under the DDA, though if complicaions arise and further diagnosis is made it may be, in which case a blue badge would be a statutory entitlement. (Added:) This however, would be at least a few months down the line.

Edited August 28, 2008 by seftonview
clarification

[legalpickle]

In which case the new condition may be disability under the DDA, but the broken leg itself isn't.

 

 

 

True, but the break itself isnt disability under the DDA. The new condition wouldnt be disability under the DDA until either (i) it has had substantial and adverse effect for at least twelve months or (ii) clinical findings efficiate that it is likely to last for at least twelve months.

 

Bringing this into line with the hypothetical circumstances being discussed, at the point a person has a broken leg they aren't disabled under the DDA, though if complicaions arise and further diagnosis is made it may be, in which case a blue badge would be a statutory entitlement.

 

I concede that you are technically correct.

[Conniff]

I think we are splitting hairs over the broken leg, I believe that was used as an hypothetical disability.

 

Lets say then that someone comes here from a foreign country and has no legs and uses prostheses or that person is deaf.

Is that person not disabled? Under the dda he would be disabled but because he is only here for a couple of weeks will not have a blue badge and may not even know what one is.

 

Are you denying him the right to park in a disabled bay?

[seftonview]

I think we are splitting hairs over the broken leg, I believe that was used as an hypothetical disability.

 

Lets say then that someone comes here from a foreign country and has no legs and uses prostheses or that person is deaf.

Is that person not disabled? Under the dda he would be disabled but because he is only here for a couple of weeks will not have a blue badge and may not even know what one is.

 

Are you denying him the right to park in a disabled bay?

 

I think you've a cheek changing the goalposts, especially since you haven't answered any of my questions, but hey ho.

 

Which country? If its another EU country, they all issue blue badges, and there is reprocipical use. I've used mine in France, Spain and Hungary before now, and will in Greece an Germany before the year is out.

 

If it's not, if he has alternate proof he meets the definition of disability, and that not using the space would cause disadvantage, provided he has proof (eg. irrefutable medical evidence), he would be entitled to use it. If he can't prove it, there is statutory justification in disallowing his use of the space.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, I do agree being a double amputee would be proof of its own volition. I recall having used this as an example myself earlier.

 

A deaf person would not be entitled to use a space, and rightly so - deafness does not cause disadvantage that could be reasonably mitigated with a disabled parking space. As I've stated, adjustments must relate to the persons disability.

Edited August 28, 2008 by seftonview
atrocious spelling

[seftonview]

A deaf person would not be entitled to use a space, and rightly so - deafness does not cause disadvantage that could be reasonably mitigated with a disabled parking space. As I've stated, adjustments must relate to the persons disability.

 

I'd like to add the following example as logical extension:-

 

Would a deaf/Deaf guy be happy if I used the induction loop at my GP's office because I have restricted mobility; thus preventing him from using it? I imagine he'd clock me one in the face ;-)

[Guest Old_andrew2018]

Hi Seftonview,

Well a success for you, the company chose to offer a settlement, its a pity about you being Gagged preventing the full circumstances being made wildly available.

Still at least you be able to discreetly point someone in the right direction should a similar issue arise.

 

Andy

[freebird]

Firstly, well done for taking on a Fat Cat and winning, regardless of the amount involved or conditions( that's your business)

You chose to share it with this group and you join others in giving inspiration to posters who may want to claim them selves. Thank you.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion of course but if they choose to post on a particular topic they should have some knowledge of the topic or at least have an open mind and learn from people with personal experience and living knowledge.

 

On other forums I have seen heated debates re, politics/religeon/football etc.and all posters contibute with their own personal opinions and loyalties. Providing it stays respectful it can be healthy banter.

 

Disability is another issue entirely and although well informed opinions can add to a debate, personal views from people who are not disabled should remain respectful. Only when you ar some one close to you , lives a life of disability, can you say if you feel discriminated against. Fom mine and my daughter's personal experiences of disability, discrimination is not usually a one off event. It can be institutional, and ongoing.

 

Myself and my daughter were born with impairements but it is society and the environment which disables us.

 

The whole debate about buildings/companys/schools makiing 'reasonable adjustments' is a joke and the Government should quantify the word reasonable instead of pussy footing around Fat Cats. ( Our school made a 'reasonable adjustment' they put in a disabled toilet........but you have to go up 3 steps to get to it! )

 

Locally we have a Tunnel which goes under the River Mersey. If you have a blue badge you can get a fast tag which is electronically picked up going through a barrier. This system allows you so many toll free tunnel journeys. Supermarket chains could use 1 million of their huge profits to put in a similar sytem affording tag holders 52 or so visits. It wouldn't take much for all the chains to get together to implement this between them. Designate the bays, put a barrier up, issue tags to blue badge holders. They DO have the room and if not they just buy it as they do when they want to extend..to add a garage, or cafe, or clothing section.....they have the bl--dy profits lets pressure them to using it.

 

 

 

 

 

A £30 billion supermarket chain made an underlying pre-tax profit of £2.8 billion.

I don't need to say which one, but it's one of the biggest 3.

 

this particular Chain is also a member of this body

Direct Enquiries - Feedback To Companies

 

You are invited by them to leave feedback re disability polycies etc.

 

this is a link to my local supermarkets who have signed up to the directenquiries but if you click on the link, althouth 1 of the big three chains is supposed to have registered, they have not given any acsess info ?

 

Direct Enquiries - Search Results: You are searching for 'Supermarkets' in 'Liverpool'.

[freebird]

just for the record here's a useful link

Baywatch Campaign - Home Page

[Janet-M]

Thanks for the link Freebird I was aware of it but just clicked on it again and noticed this

Asda was “extremely shocked and disappointed” with its results, but added: “You have to understand that we have to be quite gentle [with enforcement] because we don`t want to upset anybody.”

OMG

[seftonview]

The whole debate about buildings/companys/schools makiing 'reasonable adjustments' is a joke and the Government should quantify the word reasonable instead of pussy footing around Fat Cats. ( Our school made a 'reasonable adjustment' they put in a disabled toilet........but you have to go up 3 steps to get to it! )

 

I think the current definition works well, the fact that the requirements are open ended and flexibile means that it can help almost everyone who is disabled. Historically, where prescriptive rather than open requirements have been made, it's so much easier for people to suffer detriment. A classic example is the prescriptiveness of the Factories Act compared with the Health and Safety at Work Act; where the former tried to regulate by such things as specifying how often the walls had to be painted; the latter making clauses broad, general, and cutting the 'wiggle room'.

 

The adjustment you have used as an example would not be reasonable in the circumstances, if I were you I would take it up with them. I won't go into the ins and outs, but I would say it is prima facie unreasonable to expect someone to require assistance to get to a toilet, on the basis that it is an indignity. If you wish, post a thread, PM me the link, and I will discuss with you.

[freebird]

Jan, that doesn't surprise me.....

 

I'll pm you with something I'm organising with the manager of the new aquatics centre, for children with disabilities..x

 

 

 

 

S/V

I'm quite an active Parent, campaigning and pioneering when I can.

I am now the SEN Governor in our school and I've been 'making waves' for 18 months now.

4 years ago I found out that they were changing my daughter on the floor of the nursery with just a changing mat, but in the same room as the other children. I made it my mission to make changes and that's what I've been doing ...

 

We now have a ground level toilet, which is suitably adjusted etc. We now have entrance ramps and rails etc at entrance to school. We are just completing a sensory room. All perimiter gates are locked and we are having a new security system installed. School trips and visitis are now better planned taking in to account children with disabilities and SEN. Lessons/curriculum is now differentiated to meet all abilities.......

 

I'm not saying I was responsible for all of this but continuous chipping away is paying off and people's attitudes are changing for the better.

 

I'm also involved with lots of other voluntary groups re disability too.

 

I realised a long time ago that the World is too much for me to take on, but if I chip away when and where I can, I will effect some change hopefully.