Ignoring rights of disabled a costly option
SOURCE: THE SCOTSMAN, AUGUST 2003
Please may I bring my dog to lunch?
A strange question maybe, but one that holds great significance for someone with a guide dog. Not to mention the restaurateur who was ordered to pay compensation of £1,000 under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for refusing to accept a booking on the basis that the person he refused had a guide dog.
There are an estimated 8.6 million disabled people in Britain and no one would doubt they are entitled to equal treatment as everyone else in going about their daily lives. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ensures that employers, anyone providing goods, facilities and services to the public and those letting or managing premises have a legal duty to ensure that disabled persons are not discriminated against and have the same access to services as able bodied persons. Anyone who does discriminate against disabled persons could find themselves being sued in court – following in the footsteps of the wayward restaurateur.
The costs of the Act, however, go way beyond compensation. The main cost will actually be incurred through measures of prevention put in place to comply with the Act. By the 1st of October 2004 and continually thereafter all groups mentioned above will have to review their services to ensure that they have taken all reasonable steps to change any procedures or physical features of that service that make it unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to make use of it. It is estimated that the cost of this could reach as much as £1 billion.
Tenants and landlords can qualify under the Act. For example, if a Tenant provides a service to the public or is an employer or if a landlord has responsibility for communal areas within property that they let, then they qualify. In these cases, the question of who pays for the costs of compliance is notably unclear in the provisions of the Act.
This is a point of understandable concern. Can the landlord charge the cost through to the tenant? Arguably if the landlord does decide to take a particular action, like install a ramp and the decision to do so was prompted by the requirements of the Act, then, as the work was done to comply with statute, it is therefore chargeable to the tenant.
When it comes to the actual changes and alterations required to comply with the Act, the overriding principle is one of “reasonableness” and the person or organisation providing the service does have a choice as to how to provide its services in such a way as to comply with the Act. But what is “reasonable”?
Many organisations are no doubt concerned following the recent announcement by the RNIB that, under the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act, they will undertake groundbreaking legal action against companies that ignore the needs of blind and disabled people. To illustrate the point, the charity is currently providing legal representation for two individuals in separate cases relating to "unreasonable difficulties" and "less favourable treatment" in the provision of services on the internet.
The Disability Rights Commission was set up to promote the aim of the Act and in the last three years has responded to nearly half a million queries from disabled people and businesses wanting advice and information on disabled rights. The commission represents any disabled persons who feel they have a claim they can pursue either through mediation or the Courts. This included the person wanting to take their guide dog to a restaurant, as well a disabled person who was refused a flat let by a landlord and was awarded compensation of £1750 on the basis of discrimination.
The rights under the Act are enforced by the individual themselves raising an action either against an employer in a Tribunal or against an individual or organisation in the Sheriff Court. The aggrieved party will be able to claim compensation for their loss (if any) or at the very least for injury to their feelings. While this will not necessarily result in large amounts being awarded to the individual, it is unlikely that any business would welcome the negative publicity identifying that it turned away or discriminated against disabled persons. Moreover, no business can afford to ignore a market with an estimated spending power of £45 billion.
So what does the future hold under the provisions of the Act? Disabled individuals and representative organisations are empowered under the Act to point the finger of blame. Doing nothing is simply not an option and, while individuals and organisations may not be required to take steps to fundamentally alter the nature of their service, trade, profession or business, they will need to seriously consider relevant changes and alterations to avoid being named and shamed.