Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I posted a reply earlier which I have now deleted because I realise that I hadn't read your story correctly. You have laid out £1000 on repairs to a vehicle which according to you is probably in need of further repairs. Although you have been rebuffed by the dealer at your first asking, your position would be much better had you provided the quotes for the repair work to the dealer in advance so that he had forward knowledge and was able to present his own opinions before you went ahead and spent the money. This kind of transparency is essential when you are in conflict with somebody who may later on dispute the value of the work which was carried out. Fortunately you have had more than one opinion from independent garages and this will be very helpful to you. So in order to recover your money, you have prepared a letter but which is rather open-ended because it simply says that you would like to have a reply within 14 days or else you may go and see a solicitor. Given that you have been rebuffed quite peremptorily by the seller of the vehicle, I don't think that this is going to make very much impression. You need to take control of this and assert yourself. I notice that you say that you are too exhausted to look around for a replacement vehicle. Do you have the stamina to conduct a small claim against this dealer? It's very easy but it will require some tenacity and there won't be a quick solution. I can expect to go on for six months or so before you get a result unless the dealer decides to put their hands up. I would avoid going to a solicitor if I were you because first of all you incur expenses which you will not get back from the dealer. Also the solicitor will start off by sending letters which will simply delay things further and of course will incur further costs for you. You haven't told us the name of the dealer – even though you have been asked by another member of the site team. He also haven't told us anything about the car – the make, model, year, mileage and price. I think we will have to modify your letter based on whether you think that you would be prepared to take your own small claim action. If you do take a small claim action then your financial outlay will be fairly minimal and everything you do outlay will be recoverable – assuming that you win. On the basis of what you say, I would guess that your chances of success are much better than 90%. However, there is the issue that the dealer may try to challenge the value of the work you have had carried out because you didn't give him any advance notice. We will have to deal with this.  
    • So Guys, After sending the last letter as everyone else  here I got a reply from Moriartylaw with a statement that ADCB instructed them to act on their behalf and a copy of all my credit card bank statements. Not sure what to do now. They want me to respond and supply them with a list of asset and liabilities.    please the attachment of the letter. moriartylaw.jpeg.pdf
    • Okay, let me start again. In terms of planning, is it not enough to say they don't have it since it's not shown on the council site? If not, if I ring Stockport planning would they put in writing that there's no planning?   I could contact the land registry to find out who the land owner is. If I contact them directly maybe they'll tell me if they have a contract in place. If they ignore my request too then should I be doing other things to find this out?
    • I'm trying to work through this step-by-step as I read the story again. There was a dispute over a will in respect of your grandfather's house but the dispute was eventually abandoned and it seems that the house was apportioned to your mother and her brother who presumably were the only two children. The will was unsigned and so we could say that the house passed to the two of them under the rules of intestacy. You then decided to buy the house for £50,000 and presumably the money you paid was divided between your mother and your uncle – who were the owners of the house. This was in 1999. We talking about 20 years ago here and so in respect of most legal questions I would have thought that some limitation period applied. (However the issue of the trust has been raised – and this wouldn't be affected by limitation) However, presumably the house was bought at a proper value given the market at the time and any work that it needed doing. Presumably the house was properly conveyed. Although a lot of things have passed – including home improvements, tenancies et cetera, from the story you have told us, neither your parents nor your uncle have been involved in this at all. Now you have received a letter from your parents saying that the house is really theirs and that you have simply been holding it on trust for them and they now want it back. Is this a reasonable summary of what has happened?   Although you have written a fair bit about bills, tenancies, and that you have lived in your parents home for some of this 30 years, I'm not sure what relevance that has to the problem. I have to say that your explanation is very unclear. A bit rambling in fact. If you think that part of the story is relevant then maybe you'd like to express it all a little more clearly and say in what way you think it is relevant to the problem. You are much more familiar with the story then I am but I don't see that those factors are terribly important on the brief understanding that I have. if if any money is owed to your parents because of you having lived with them et cetera then it seems to me that that is a separate matter and has nothing to do with your ownership of the property. You say that you have received a letter from solicitors claiming first of all that there is a constructive trust or that you might be subject to a proprietary estoppel. In terms of the estoppel, that doctrine is only available in very particular circumstances and could not be used to attack you in any event. Estoppel, whether it is proprietary or promissory can only be used as a defence. So the question of estoppel in this situation is completely irrelevant, in my view, although I don't see any basis for one in any event. So what remains is the possibility of a constructive trust. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that there is such a trust and I think that the first question needs to be asked is on what basis they consider that there is a constructive trust. Secondly, of course, even if there was a constructive trust, on the basis of what you have told us, it wouldn't only be your mother who was the beneficiary, it would also be your uncle. Furthermore, if you were a constructive trustee then at the very least you would be entitled to recover all of the expenses that you had laid out over 30 years – including the cost of the property plus interest – less any financial benefit that you had accrued from renting it out and so forth. I'm not sure how good this analysis is. This is well out of my experience – but I would suggest that you consider it and see whether any of it rings true. I would also start making a very detailed account of all the money which you have spent over the years on the property and also a detailed account of all the benefits you have accrued from it. I wouldn't supply this to their solicitor but if you end up having to instruct your own lawyer then I'm sure that you may be asked for this if there is any suspicion that a constructive trust may exist. Frankly it sounds like a load of rubbish to me but we will be very interested if you will keep us up to date. So there you have it. No particular answers. Just a few unsupported and unqualified opinions    
    • Hello and welcome to CAG.   I agree with dx, hiring a lawyer is unlikely to help as most of them don't understand fare matters, so you end up paying for their learning curve.   Your idea about involving your GP is a good one, it sounds as if you need their input with how you're feeling. And if they would write a supporting letter that could help too. Hopefully your medical information will be through in time.   HB
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1202 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Could someone tell me if there are any rules and regs regarding who can use an accessible public toilet? Are non disabled people allowed to use it? What if the toilet is within a leisure centre/cafe etc?

 

Thank you in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the legislation states is that it has to have Disabled accessible toilets as a public body , that is all. It will not be unlawful as the old DDA , now Equality Act does not apply on private property unless an employee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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 .

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...