Dda

[benny1970]

Hi

 

I am going to court over DDA issue. No inductive loop so therefore could not order food. I am deaf and blind blind. Inductive loop is a reasonable adjustment. Today had defendant questionaire stating they would like to proceed under multi track. My claim is under £5000. They also wrote another letter asking me how much can can i hear. Can I speak properly etc, Telling me I have 14 days to respond. I find this as an insult!

 

Do i have to answer. I have already submitted evidence that I am deaf.

 

I found the question discriminatory and offensive. How can I complain to the court?

 

Multitrack they want as the legal costs will be over £25000

[Bookworm]

???

 

What do you mean by "defendant questionnaire"? I don't understand. :-?

 

It's not up to them to choose which track, it's up to the courts, and if they are trying to contact you directly saying they want it to go multi, it sounds like they're trying to scare you into dropping your case, but I could be misunderstanding your post completely, please clarify.

[benny1970]

Right-

 

I mean they sent me a copy of the questionaire and in that said mutitrack because legal costs will be in excess of £25000. Copy sent to me by them

 

They also wrote another letter to me dispte me already given evidence that I am disable stating:

 

when i speak do people understand me?

how deaf am I. how blind am I. How does it affect me. They given me 14 days to reply.

[Bookworm]

Are you talking about the allocation questionnaire?

 

If yes, then you should have received a copy from the courts for you to fill in. There is no valid reason for the other side to send you a copy of the AQ, that is just intimidation tactics as far as I can see.

 

How much is your claim for? The fact they supposedly have high legal costs is their problem and shouldn't influence the judge, and TBH I fail to see the relevance.

 

I take it you are sure that the form was sent by the other side and not by the court? Can you confirm, please?

 

As for their additional questions, I think you may as well answer them and show the judge that you are still willing to discuss matters without court, but careful it isn't a trap, you know, "how blind are you" and you can obviously read it so not blind, there's the proof... As for giving you 14 days to reply, or what? :-? Are they threatening you?

 

I'm going to bed now, but I'll check on your thread tomorrow morning. Please check your paperwork and let us know the answers to my questions.

[benny1970]

Hello,

 

I filled in my questionaire for the court and posted back to the court. They filled in their questionaire and sent a copy to me as well as the court. They also sent a letter asking various questions about my disabilities including I am deaf and dumb. They are basically asking for my medical records. They have given me 14 days. I cannot read I have special software that covert words in brallie on the machine.

 

Thanks

[Bookworm]

Ok. it's all a bit clearer now, thanks.

 

They don't have to send you a copy of the AQ, I still think they did it as an intimidatory move, but they would argue that's their standard procedure, no doubt.

 

I know you said they have given you 14 days, but have they said what happens if you don't? Or invoke a special rule under which they ask for the info?

[benny1970]

Hello,

 

They sent another letter basically requiring my medical records. If I dont they may apply for a court order. Also so far they have refused to answer any of my questions.

 

What is my position in this? Am I require under the DDA to provide medical records to justfy my reasonable adjustments?

 

Thanks

[Bookworm]

Hello,

 

They sent another letter basically requiring my medical records. If I dont they may apply for a court order. Also so far they have refused to answer any of my questions.

 

What is my position in this? Am I require under the DDA to provide medical records to justfy my reasonable adjustments?

 

Thanks

Honestly, I don't know.

 

You might want to give the Disability Commission a call on Monday, see if they can answer that. Sorry.

[JonCris]

Hello,

 

I filled in my questionaire for the court and posted back to the court. They filled in their questionaire and sent a copy to me as well as the court. They also sent a letter asking various questions about my disabilities including I am deaf and dumb. They are basically asking for my medical records. They have given me 14 days. I cannot read I have special software that covert words in brallie on the machine.

 

Thanks

 

They are entitled to ask you to 'prove' your disability & a letter from your GP will suffice because as your disabilty is ipso locutor (self evident) there is no need for your medical records

 

Also as your case will be a simple matter of law there are no grounds for it be multi track. I suggest they are simply trying to intimidate you

[benny1970]

Hello,

 

I have already submitted my blue badge holder with my photo. Blind registration card which is produced by the eye consultant and a letter from social services to say that they know me and that I am reg blind and deaf.

[JonCris]

Hello,

 

I have already submitted my blue badge holder with my photo. Blind registration card which is produced by the eye consultant and a letter from social services to say that they know me and that I am reg blind and deaf.

 

In that case there is no need to supply any other proof. Also by demanding your medical records over such a matter they are trying to increase their costs as they can claim your records needed considering.

 

Prepare a letter of refusal post it here & I & no doubt others will help you with its final constructuion

[benny1970]

Hello

 

Can anybody tell me why the DDA and the Human Rights Act interacts with each other? In what way would this work for not hearing what was said and not being able to use the toilets? How would I use examples in court?

 

I will contact the EHRC on Monday. I did read on their website if you are reg blind you need not prove further.

Edited August 7, 2010 by benny1970
grammer

[JonCris]

The HRA doesn't apply to private companies except where they perform a public function. Where it would apply is against the public authorities who have failed to enforce the regulations

[marmacc]

Hi Benny,

 

I posted on the other thread regarding to toilet issue. Just for info in relation to the loop, this is also covered by building regs in so much as it states that reception or sales counters should be equipped. If I remeber rightly, it does not force them to loop all counters, just one plus a sign indicating its present (which may not be of use for you).

 

I wonder if they have ever considered providing informaiton, menus, price etc in more accessible formats. Most fast food places just have an inlluminated sign board at high level. Not particularly accessible !

 

To me, I would expect any major fast food establishment to have considered the WC, loops and alternative information as part of their 'antipatory' duties. It all seems quite clear to me, they have breached, probably on several levels. Don't let them intimidate you by trying to over complicate things!

[JonCris]

Hi Benny,

 

I posted on the other thread regarding to toilet issue. Just for info in relation to the loop, this is also covered by building regs in so much as it states that reception or sales counters should be equipped. If I remeber rightly, it does not force them to loop all counters, just one plus a sign indicating its present (which may not be of use for you).

 

I wonder if they have ever considered providing informaiton, menus, price etc in more accessible formats. Most fast food places just have an inlluminated sign board at high level. Not particularly accessible !

 

To me, I would expect any major fast food establishment to have considered the WC, loops and alternative information as part of their 'antipatory' duties. It all seems quite clear to me, they have breached, probably on several levels. Don't let them intimidate you by trying to over complicate things!

 

Quite its simply a matter of law & to suggest it needs to be multitrack is nonsense. I should warn THEM about costs if they persist in this rubbish

[Bookworm]

Thanks JC for confirming what my instincts were telling me.

[papasmurf1cx]

Benny........... Sounds to me that the solicitors are using that trick of upping the stakes in as far as costs are concerned. They will be arguing that the issue raises 'serious concerns of legal argument' or something like that. So the court put it in to the multi track so you can also get a lawyer to argue the legal arguments. Should you lose the argument and or not achieve more than any offer or money paid into court then they may seek their costs against you.

 

As far as medical evidence is concerned they are entitled to have an "expert" appointed to prove that there is a disability. If you look at the DDA and the various sections you have to be able to prove the elements that you are saying they have breached. It sounds pretty basic but it is not. Blue badges and the like don't prove anything as far as courts are concerned. Experts eg doctors preparing medico legal reports write about the medical problem in legal terms. They normally ask to have access to your medical notes, although you have the right to deny them access or at least deny full access. Normally in 'simple' cases the expert is a jointly appointed expert whose report is not questioned. These reports can cost many hundreds of pounds and even more in complex cases.

 

the 14 days they have quoted is all to do with what the court will ask both parties to comply with or else the asking party can apply for the case to be dismissed / or / a judgement for you entered in default of not complying with the request. Normally these time limits are flexible due to pressure of work and a 'Unless' order will follow ie unless you comply then X will happen.

 

The other thing I ask is did you give the Respondent (your opponent) a chance to correct the fault? There are defences to not complying to the DDa eg the size of the company or the adjustment might put them out of business. Normally public bodies have no excuse for structural adjustments. In any event if you gave the company a chance to put the loop in after you discovered the problem and especially if you are a regular user of the service then they will have no excuse.

 

When I take an issue with a private company / person then I generally complain personally at the time, follow it up with a letter confirming the complaint and then asking what they are to do to comply and make the REASONABLE adjustment (note if it is unreasonable they may have an argument not to do it so it is a matter of judgement). If they put you off and say they have an ongoing capital programme to comply but as they have many branches this particular problem is X month / years away. You could say that is unreasonable or give them their alloted time and go back and start again from point zero.

 

The point being that you should give them enough rope to hang themselves. Did you do all this or similar?

 

Finally, as you have so many problems have you tried getting hold of the RNIB or the RNID and asking them to help in a legal sense?

[JonCris]

Blindless does not require an expert witness nor does it require the claimants medical records. This self-evident disability only requires a GP's confirmation AND the fact that the person is registered IS very relevant as before registration an examination will have been undertaken & a medical opinion given

 

I also suspect any court will see what they are up to & refuse them permission to expand their conduct of their unreasonable case

 

Tell them your disability is self evident as confirmed by your GP etc & with a mind to costs & the fact that you are a LiP you do not think it necessary to provide your medical records & should they disagree perhaps they might wish to ask the court for advice

 

Discovery must be explicit & does not allow them to go on a fishing expedition

[seftonview]

Blindless does not require an expert witness nor does it require the claimants medical records. This self-evident disability only requires a GP's confirmation AND the fact that the person is registered IS very relevant as before registration an examination will have been undertaken & a medical opinion given

 

Whilst this is true - certified blindness is a deemed disability for the purposes of the DDA, the reasonable adjustment contended for in the OP, an induction loop, relates to hearing. A claimant would therefore need to prove disability in respect of the hearing impairment. It may well be the case that the hearing impairment is self evident, but this is not necessarily clear cut.

 

What is the extent of the hearing loss? Bear in mind that, for the purposes of this question, the answer should be the hearing loss if any aids you would normally use were in fact not used, so for example if you have hearing aids, what is your hearing like if you do not wear them.

 

SV

[JonCris]

Whether or not the claimant is deaf (or blind) may not be relevant as the mere fact that the defendants like many others have not taken reasonable steps to cater for ANY such disabled persons may be sufficient to make a finding of fault

[seftonview]

Whether or not the claimant is deaf (or blind) may not be relevant as the mere fact that the defendants like many others have not taken reasonable steps to cater for ANY such disabled persons may be sufficient to make a finding of fault

 

I'm sorry but you are mistaken.

 

Service providers are under an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments by virtue of s21 DDA.

 

S21(10) provides: "This section imposes duties only for the purpose of determining whether a provider of services has discriminated against a disabled person; and accordingly a breach of any such duty is not actionable as such."

 

Thus, a claim has no basis in law to be made on the basis of simply "you failed to make any reasonable adjustments"

 

It is the case therefore, for a claim to be proved, the test is:

 

 

1. does the anticipatory reasonable adjustment duty apply (ie, is the defendant a service provider within the meaning of Part 3 DDA)
   
2. if it does, then has there been a failure to comply with the duty causing impossibility/unreasonable difficulty for disabled persons generally accessing the service
   
3. if so, has the failure to comply with the duty had such effect upon the disabled person concerned (ie, the Claimant)
   

In order for 3 to be assessed, the Claimant must demonstrate he is a disabled person for the purposes of the DDA.

 

S1(2) provides: "In this Act “disabled person” means a person who has a disability."

 

The relevant disabilities in the Claimants case is deafness. It is therefore necessary to prove deafness is a disability for the purposes of the DDA.

 

SV

[JonCris]

OK but none of this requires that he provide access to his medical records. I still assert that his treating doctors confirmation of his disability is sufficient proof of his disability & satisfies the requirement to 'prove' disability

[seftonview]

OK but none of this requires that he provide access to his medical records. I still assert that his treating doctors confirmation of his disability is sufficient proof of his disability & satisfies the requirement to 'prove' disability

 

Again I must disagree.

 

Disability for the purposes of the DDA is a functional concept, based upon how a condition affects a persons ability to carry out normal day to day activities. This necessarily requires evidence of both what the impairment is, and how the impairment affects a person. What the impairment is, is a medical question, how the impairment affects a person is can be a medical question, a functional question, or in the majority of cases, a blend of the two.

 

A good amount of information can be found in the opening chapters of the guide by Tamara Lewis, a solicitor at the LAG, which is published on the CEHR website here.

 

Evidence will be required of the impairments, and their functional effects. This will, without doubt, require more than you suggest by way of evidence.

 

SV

[marmacc]

Hi Benny,

 

Any update on this one?

 

Cheers

 

Marmacc

[jas1304]

'subbing' - please ignore this post