Penalties Increase For Not Providing Access For The Disabled
Owners of properties allowing entry to members of the public were given a stark warning recently when the courts found The Royal Bank of Scotland had breached its duties to provide wheelchair access to one its premises.
The Bank was ordered to pay £6,500 in damages and install a platform lift, likely to cost in the region of £200,000. This is the first time a case like this has attracted a payout of this level. It is also the first time that a court has ordered building works to be carried out since the Disability Discrimination Act came into force in 1995.
Previously courts have only ordered remedies on this scale when employers have fallen foul of duties to their employees. Now, however, it would seem that the remit has broadened significantly to include the public.
Duties
In 2004, the Act was strengthened. It was no longer acceptable to provide an alternative method of service. Instead, “reasonable adjustments” had to be made to all properties to ensure that they could be used easily by every member of society.
Accordingly, the Court held that, although the Bank arranged access to three other branches and offered the use of telephone and internet banking, this was not sufficient. It was for the customer and not the Bank to decide where and how services were obtained. Consequently, it is for property owners and occupiers to anticipate potential problems that might be faced by disabled people requiring use of their particular premises.
What is a “reasonable adjustment”?
The law states that “such steps as are reasonable, in all the circumstances” must be taken. Case law has enhanced this by suggesting that when determining whether changes to a building are reasonable or not a broad evaluation is needed.
The policy of the Act is to enable both able and disabled persons to use a building equally. If there is only one solution that enables this, then this may have to be adopted. Where there are a range of alternatives then the fact that one solution, possibly the least costly, is utilised may not be enough.
However, it will be a relief to many small business to know that what is reasonable will be affected by size and resources. A small, local shop would not be expected to go to the same lengths as a multinational corporation. For example, if the Judge in the Royal Bank of Scotland case had been ruling against a small shop, it is likely that the provision of a ramp would have satisfied the requirements of the Act.
What can I do to ensure I do not breach the law on physical adjustments?
The following steps may help to ensure that you do not breach the current laws:
- Is it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to access your premises in order to use your services?
- Is the difficulty caused by a physical feature?
- If yes, are there any adjustments that you could make?
- Do you have the financial resources to make these adjustments?
- If not, is assistance available to you?
- If you can fund or can get assistance for adjustments, will they cause excessive disruption to your business?
All property owners and occupiers must remain alert to the needs of all those using their premises, including the disabled. The outcome of the recent case certainly shows that it is crucial to have the foresight to predict problems before they arise.
Contact Nicholas Burt for further information or advice on this matter and other queries regarding commercial property.
Published 23/01/2009. The author of this article is Nicholas Burt
