Vodaphone versus a deaf person (DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION)

[Human Writes]

Buzby did you catch the details of this judgement:

 

Royal Bank of Scotland loses landmark wheelchair access appeal - Times Online

 

Personally the court reached a decision I just cannot agree with.

 

The claimant had access to three other nearby branches within a mile or so of his home with disabled access and he could have used internet banking, however, RBS meaning us as the taxpayer got stuck with £200,000 of amendments to a listed building, plus damages, plus legal costs so that this one customer could access one particular branch.

[buzby]

I dead hear about this, and it was a shame they did not appeal to the high court. I am sympathetic to those with disabilities, and have a range of them myself, however I believe we have to make the best of what we have. Previously in situations were there is clearly no possibility for a certain type of accommodation (an access lift, for example) then providing there remains a willingness to provide same at a nearby or adjacent site, they should not be liable for circumstances outwith their control. They probably did not even own the building. Being 'reasonable' cuts both ways.

 

But then, what has common sense got to do with anything these days?

[pompeyfaith]

buzby i note you say that he can use PAYG but to a deaf person this also brings its limits comunicating in the shop indeed for many deaf people a text contract with DD will be easier

[zooch]

xxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxx

[buzby]

buzby i note you say that he can use PAYG but to a deaf person this also brings its limits comunicating in the shop indeed for many deaf people a text contract with DD will be easier

 

But this is the tail wagging the dog. Why use an unsuitable product (like a phone) when there are text devices available, even a broadband dongle provides access to SMS and no requrement for 'voice' minutes that remain unused. Trying to get a phone with no line rental is possible by selecting the correct tariff.

 

What's next? Taking BT to court because a person can use Broadband for text transfers, but is forced to pay monthly rental for unused voice calls? As you cannot have broadband without line rental, there's no discrimination - everyone is in the same boat.

[zooch]

xxx?

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxx

[buzby]

You must have phenomenal insight into matters not under consideration. I'm neither losing an argument not fruistrated. I to however remain agahst that after asking several times for some indication as to how Vodafone have discriminated against you, you cannot bring yourself to disclose those reasons. I can only assume to do so might lead to you experiencing further ridicule?

 

Still, the rest of us just get on with life.

[zooch]

xxxxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxxxx

[Human Writes]

Well if they make building accessible for able body then they should do the same for the disable. Having other building near by as an excuse is not acceptable. As for internet banking, this does not offer all the services that the bank will do. Also should a disable person stay in because nothing is accessible? No. RBS was prosecuted and quite rightly so. If you are moaning about how much maybe you should moan about the bonuses instead. RBS had the opportunity to put things right but no they were arrogant about the Disability Discrimintion Act. Until your are a disable person, you do not understand the implications inccessibility has.

 

I agree with you to an extent, I agree that as a society we should make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities as the DDA specifies, however, I suspect we would disagree regarding what is reasonable in a particular set of circumstances.

 

I think that if alternative services are available that are not unduly onerous to use, then a disabled person should make use of them.

[buzby]

Finally you understand! I will let you know the outcome. Bye Vodafone....i mean budzy or whatever his or her name is!

 

Shame you forgot about message #10.

[zooch]

xxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxx

[Bookworm]

I suspect RBS lost because of their failure to defend the issue properly:

“The bank did not take those steps, giving as its reason not the disproportionate cost of carrying out the work, but simply the fact that it would lose the use of an interview room.”

If this is correct, then they deserved to lose, frankly.

 

As for the current issue, I think that the premise is this: a non-disabled person will usually use their minutes on both things, and hopefully won't go over budget on either. A deaf person will by force use SMS only, which means they either pay more to have a higher allowance, or go over their allowance and get charged for it, something which wouldn't have happened if they were able to use the phone instead.

 

The argument then would be under "reasonable adjustments" where the company wouldn't lose anything by creating a "deaf"contract in which there is no voice allowance, but the minutes are double on the SMS, or indeed a "blind" contract with the opposite. It would hardly be a great inconvenience to the company, and I would think that if OP is suing under the "reasonable adjustment" criteria, he will have a very good chance of winning, actually. Can't comment further without more info though, there may well be other criteria we are not aware of which would change things.

 

zooch, Buzby doesn't work for Vodafone, he just likes telling people they will lose, don't take it personally, he does it to most people. ;-) It's actually usually a good sign when he ddoes, thankfully.

[buzby]

, he just likes telling people they will lose, don't take it personally, he does it to most people. ;-) It's actually usually a good sign when he ddoes, thankfully.

 

I would have thought better of you. 'Like telling people they'll lose...?' Like you tell people they'll win when there's no chance?

 

Of the two, I think the pragmatic approach always wins, because it won't come as a disappointment when it does go pear shaped. Consider the OP has an inability to expand on his reasoning, we go with what we;re given. And so far, there's no discrimination as there are other valid products available. As always, the risk remains with the pursuer.

 

Be the perennial optomist if you must, but don't mislead others, they may not know any better.

[zooch]

xxxxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxxxx

[zooch]

xxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxx

[HSBCrusher]

I have moved some stuff into the BG, any further off topic/trolling stuff will follow.

[buzby]

By taking advantage of the free handset, you are agreeing to their tariffs based on your handset choice. Do you think they give handsets for free if you're not going to use them to the full?

 

Free handset deals are bad, very bad, for everyone except the networks, OR people who can make use 100% of their bundle. Since 80% of contract users do not make use of their allowance, it actually costs them considerably more than if they bought the handset for the going rate ('unlocked') and entered into a SIM deal for whatever they wanted - voice/texts or either.

 

All my mobiles are not supplied by the networks, as I can save a fortune by controlling these things myself. Your action is flawed, as you are expectng to dismantle the very mechanism that makes the handset 'free'. As it happens, OFCOM has been trying to clamp down on this anyway, so you'll probably eventually get you wish - but not before the free handsets are consigned to oblivion. In which case, we'll be back where we are now, with the same choice, but no free phones.

[Bookworm]

But they could still offer a free handset with voice mns only or SMS only, offered to the deaf or blind, yes? It doesn't need special requirement, expensive software, correct? They already have packages with either more talk or texts dependin on one's preferences, right?

 

The simple fact that they don't have an alternative for people with different disabilities, THAT's what puts them in breach of the DDA.

 

You are approaching this from the wrong angle as it were, looking at sales mechanisms, when this has to do with a much larger angle, namely DDA compliance.

[buzby]

No they couldn't because the use of the handset requires that the basic facilities be used. So, the business model is based on the equivalent of (say) 500 minutes per month. This could equate to 1000 texts, and probably render them liable for thumb fatigue cases.

 

Since a contract phone is a bad deal in nearly all cases (you don't need me to tell you that), so the argument now is that it should be embraced with special regard to text users only?

 

They've already had a blessed escape, so why try to make it more 'attractive' to them? I see where he's coming from, but it's a flawed argument, having no contract or a data only deal for texts is already doable, you just don;t get a 'free' handset - and it is with this the action will fail.

[locutus]

Maybe this is naive of me, but when buying a phone + package don't you make sure it serves your needs before committing?

[buzby]

Maybe this is naive of me, but when buying a phone + package don't you make sure it serves your needs before committing?

 

Oh heck no. The issue is that DDA users are special case and they can use the act to force companies to provide bespoke service due to the nature of the beast. Common-sense is the first casualty.

[Bookworm]

Maybe this is naive of me, but when buying a phone + package don't you make sure it serves your needs before committing?

yes, but I don't think the OP bought it. :-?

[letsdothis]

Whilst I can see Buzby's POV - I also see the OP's POV and I also see Bookie's POV as well. That's a lot of POV's

 

I do agree though, a plan specifically for blind / deaf people would be a great marketing plan from any Mobile Phone provider. In most cases a text on a PAYG plan is actually quite expensive anyway.

 

Having not used Vodafone, I have no idea what plans they offer, but on Orange, we got a brand new mobile for £18.75 per month, with like blocks of texts or web access with 600 mins included. Surely it wouldn't cost the network any extra to give say 200 mins, and 1000 texts per month or similar.

 

PS Buzby, I am so sorry that I used to dial 100 and ask to speak to you every day when I was about 8 years old. :grin:

[locutus]

Have you contacted Vodafone Disability Services? I can only find a phone number for them (irony!) on 08700 733222

[zooch]

xxx

Edited June 30, 2010 by zooch
xxx