Disabled Parking at Supermarkets

A long time ago, I decided that I really could not be bothered with going to the Supermarket. I was fed up with the rude people who rush around as if the place is their own, the staff who cannot answer the most simple of questions and I absolutely hated the queues! I now choose to do all my shopping online - be it my groceries or my luxury items!

So you can imagine my pleasure when listening to a BBC news report recently on Supermarket parking, that I discovered that I was one of the lucky ones that did not have to worry about parking but once my initial self-satisfaction subsided I took a longer look at the issue and discovered that I was actually quite irate at the current practices operating within our major Supermarkets.

The BBC identified that the four major chains all impose parking limits on their customers in most of their Supermarket car parks. A survey by the BBC revealed that 124 large Supermarkets from the big four do not allow extra parking time for their disabled customers. It also revealed that the big four are opting more to use private firms to enforce their parking rules meaning that disabled customers are becoming increasingly easy targets for these overly-keen patrols. By not allowing extra time for their disabled customers, all of the big four supermarkets are breaking the current disability discrimination laws.

Neil Coyle, from the charity Disability Alliance, told the BBC “Supermarkets need to acknowledge there is a problem, and secondly, very quickly they need to ensure their car parking procedures conform with the law”. He also added that the supermarkets need to end the “unfair charges” or “they can wait until someone takes a legal case and potentially face a considerable compensation case”.

I know many drivers already feel that they are an easy cash-cow for raising revenue but for the Supermarkets to sit back and allow this outrageous practice to continue is unacceptable. They must ensure their parking controls conform with the law and make reasonable adjustment for their disabled customers.

After all, these disabled customers are only there to buy the products they sell!

Disabled People’s Voice Becomes No More Than A Whisper – The Danger of The Equality Bill

The Government has published a single Equality Bill for the UK. If passed, this will bring disability, gender, race and other strands of discrimination within one piece of legislation. The proposals for the Bill also include some major changes to disability discrimination law but not necessarily for the better.

For many disabled people, the Equality Bill is oppressive and demeaning to disabled people. Our voice is lost in the confused and incoherent message caused by the integration of equality under one heading. What the Equality Bill fails to recognise is that whilst the strands of equality have a common aim, they are all very different and require many different approaches. The understanding of discrimination on the grounds of race or gender is far more known in the public domain than that of disability and under the Equality Bill, we have a real danger of the disabled people’s voice becoming little more than a whisper.

It has taken many campaigners many years to get where we are today with disability discrimination and changes have been slow to come. I, like many, doubt that I will see true equality for disabled people in my lifetime but I am determined to do all that I can to raise inclusion for all. The UK was very much forced to bring in the DDA but it has its limitations i.e. a requirement to make buildings accessible, but there was a more than liberal get-out clause and even more liberal lead-in times which allowed business managers to skirt around the issues. There has been little decisive action taken against offenders and we are still in a position whereby large areas of goods and services are unavailable to disabled people - some by direct discrimination i.e. non-accessible buildings and others by indirect discrimination such as no dropped kerbs etc.

The proposed Equality Bill attempts to level the playing field for all inequalities but somewhat leads to inconsistencies and there are ‘priority battles’ that have not been properly ironed out. The Equality Bill fails to address the many areas that disability reform requires and in doing so can only push back disabled equality rather than move it forward.

Event - Railtex 2009

I attended the Railtex 2009 conference held on Tuesday 9th March 2009 at Earls Court Two.

Although the basic access was acceptable, I must point out to you that I feel strongly that I was discriminated against on the grounds of my disability. As a wheelchair user, I had a very difficult and troubling experience when I went to purchase and consume my lunch at lunchtime.

Firstly, my colleague and I walked around the whole exhibition hall (taking approximately half-an-hour) and noticed that the vending counters were all on the ground floor together with very limited seating(for between 5 and 10 people). All the counters had signs pointing towards a stairway stating that additional seating was available upstairs. On further investigation i.e. walking around the exhibition hall again and asking a number of staff at various vending counters where the lifts were, I received a negative response. I went on to ask a further six venue staff who like the vending staff, did not know the location of an appropriate lift. The outcome of this situation resulted in me being unable to have lunch and drew a very poor picture on Earls Court which is meant to be one the world’s leading exhibition centres. This is a clear issue where disability equality training and access auditing are needed. Although I am not legally qualified, this would appear to be a violation of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which makes it clear that reasonable steps (including physical alterations) should be made to enable disabled people to access goods and services to the same standards as any other person.

Taking into account the numbers of people attending events within Earls Court and bearing in mind the minimal amount of resource needed to rectify this situation, I can see no obvious reason why these access works have not been implemented.

I have written to both Earls Court and to the Railtex organisers, asking for an urgent reply.

Watch this space!

Profit Over Profitability

Some time ago a colleague of mine was in a Tesco Express situated at an Esso Garage. Whilst waiting to pay, she witnessed a customer struggling with the chip and pin machine because it was secured to the base with a cable tie and could not be removed. The gentleman became quite frustrated and yet the staff did nothing to assist. Eventually, he said he would pay by cash.

When my colleague’s turn came, she pointed out to the cashier that she was somewhat shocked by this incident and that it may be deemed unreasonable under the Disability Discrimanation Act 1995.

When discussing this incident with me, her reaction was one of disbelief. Firstly, the cashier appeared to have no idea what the DDA was and therefore expressed the belief that it didn’t matter as most people would not find it an issue. She pointed out that this was not what was important but the paramount concern should have been that this may be a barrier to disabled customers. Upon asking to speak to the Manager, she was told he was unavailable and it became clear that the cashier did not think her concern was warranted.

Over the following weeks, she regularly used the same Tesco Express and on every occasion asked to speak to the Manager who always appeared to be unavailable.

At the week-end, she again saw another customer struggling with the equipment whilst the cashiers looked on unconcerned.

Deciding she had had enough, my colleague was determined to speak to the Manager to make him aware of this unreasonable barrier. After a wait, the Manager was located and she presented her concerns to him.

The Manager listened patiently and responded that they had experienced a number of thefts of the machines and therefore the need to secure the chip and pin machines in this manner was necessary and they could not keep wasting profits on replacing them. Pointing out that these were a barrier to disabled customers particularly those with a visual impairment, my colleague was shocked to hear him say that there were not enough customers with issues to be a worry. He also stated that if the customer told the cashier that they had an impairment the cable tie could be cut so that they could use them.

What...... Are you as shocked as I am?

There are many issues surrounding this on-going issue that cause concern, so lets look at them all individually:-

1. The original cashier did not know what the DDA was and therefore could see
no reason why he should even consider the access needs of disabled customers.
This attitude must surely show that providing Disability Equality Training is
clearly not being implemented within the store’s training programme and should
be addressed immediately.

2. If the Manager of any service provider has scant concern for access needs than
this will be reflected through the whole organisation. Managers must set the
correct tone and implementation to ensure that their staff have a strong role
model and the necessary guidelines in place.

3. The Manager clearly puts the profit of his store before his access
requirements and did not see the need to change as, in his opinion, it
affected so few of his customers. Under the DDA, the number of customers
affected is irrelevant. A service provider must provide their service in such
a manner that no customer is treated less favourably than others.

4. The statement that any customer experiencing a problem should make the cashier
aware of their disability or impairment is, in itself, outrageous. The Social
Model of Disability determines that any disability or impairment is personal
to the individual and is not a matter for idle chit-chat or gossip. As such, a
disabled person should never be put in a position whereby they have to
discuss their disability or impairment unless they wish to.

At the end of her discussion with the Manager, my colleague felt that he had no real incentive to deal with the matter. She pointed out to him that he could be heading towards a claim under the DDA and yet still he seemed unconcerned. Asking if he had even considered other options, he stated that he did not feel he had to.

In total disbelief, she left the matter but she informed him that she would take the matter further by contacting his head office. His response was purely to do that if she felt it necessary.

This level of dismissal of the DDA is shocking but not uncommon. For many, making access changes are second to profits and therefore something that can be pushed to the sidelines – an out of sight, out of mind attitude is still prevalent along our high streets and until strong action is taken, like that against the Royal Bank of Scotland, many will continue to dismiss the need for change.

Legal Victory Is A Small Step Towards Better Inclusion

In our daily lives, there are many barriers disabled people encounter none more so than the physical barriers. Couple these barriers with attitudinal barriers and we are faced with exclusion from many mainstream activities.

The Disability Discrimination Act together with the adoption of the Social Model of Disability should help eliminate this problem. However, many organisations still seem to do the bare minimum to assist access for disabled people and in the past, legal cases have been settled at minimum cost and usually without any admission of unlawful behaviour.

Finally, we have someone who was willing to take on the big boys and from this we have one of the most significant legal cases so far under the Disability Discrimination Act.

David Allen, a 17 year old wheelchair user from Sheffield decided enough was enough when he could not access his local bank. Together with assistance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Sheffield Law Centre, he took on the Royal Bank of Scotland.

This action was taken following numerous occasions when David was treated less favourably by his branch in Sheffield City Centre. Despite signs indicating accessibility, David found the branch was completely inaccessible to wheelchair users. On occasions he was asked to give personal information whilst in the street and was eventually advised to use the nearest accessible branch over 10 miles away.

Judge John Dowse, at Sheffield County Court, passed judgement that Royal Bank of Scotland had not made any serious attempt to make the branch accessible as required under the law. He awarded David £6,500 - the highest ever payout for this type of case. Even more significant, was the fact that he ordered an injunction against the service provider – the first time ever since the DDA came into force in 1995. The bank has been ordered to install a lift at the relevant branch so that David and other people with mobility impairments can access the building.

This ruling sends a strong and decisive message to all service providers that they have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that disabled people are not discriminated against or treated less favourably.

I, for one, thank David for pursuing his right for inclusion and taking on the big boys.

The Disability Equality Duty - does it work? (Part 2)

Well done – London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
As you may recall from reading my previous blogs I am a Fulham football club fan (we are possibly the best team in the world) and usually after a football game, my friends and I would go out for a meal.
In the past, there have not been many accessible places to eat around the Fulham area. Although its quite a walk, we went to the new development at Chelsea village, I went there about a year ago and came across the usual barriers which prolong my journey quite significantly such as, “dropped kerbs”. By this, I mean, dropped kerbs that are no help to anyone, they should be flush with the road surface and not have a small step as large numbers of there dropped do.
Last week, I went along the same route which goes along Fulham road towards the New Kings road, practically the whole route had been re-paved incorporating proper dropped kerbs. which was a big surprise to me and in comparison to the last blog entry about the disability equality duty - this is a good example of when it does work.

The Disability Equality Duty - Does It Work? (Part 1)

The Disability Equality Duty is part of the DDA which came into force just over two years ago. This is concerned with promoting the rights of disabled people within society and ensuring that the needs of disabled people are met within the functions provided by public authorities.

One such public authority is the police.

I am a regular football supporter (Fulham Football Club - possibly the best in the world) and use a local bus-stop which is near to the tube. As you can imagine, after any home match, the whole world and his father head towards this area and as such, the police are present to undertake crowd control. In the past, the buses pull up far away from the kerb so their ramp cannot be deployed correctly. Therefore, often I have asked the police to have a word with the driver before the bus moved to ensure that he positions the bus near to the kerb. On previous occasions this has worked and in my mind this is how the Disability Equality Duty should work firsthand. However, three weeks ago I asked a police officer the same thing and my request was refused! The police comment was "that they were on crowd control duties and so were unable to assist with anything else".

I believe I am a member of that crowd and I should have an equal right to be controlled and logic would tell me getting me onto the bus and away from the area falls under the remit of crowd control and I believe that this is what the Disability Equality Duty should be.

I would welcome anyone’s comments on this issue as in the above scenario it does seem that this is a grey area.

Hotel Reply

The on-going saga of the Radisson Hotel continues........

I have received a response from the Radisson, Birmingham over the weekend. They have duly acknowledged their mistakes and shortcomings and have offered various gestures to apologise for this situation. However, I am concerned as to their understanding of the DDA as they comment that "The Radisson SAS Hotel Birmingham takes the Disability Discrimination Act extremely
seriously and the hotel fully complies with the Act" - The DDA is not compliant based legislation but is an evolving piece of legislation whereby the boundaries may change on a daily basis.

Even though the gestures and the apology were made, the response did state that they accept no liability but surely the admission itself implies this?

hotel refusal continued

I was incredibly disgusted with the hotel’s mistake on Saturday 4th October 2008.

I had previously booked a twin accessible room and a twin connecting room staying at the Radisson, Birmingham. On Saturday, my Personal Assistant arrived at the hotel at approximately 12.00 noon to leave our bags there and I was horrified that there was no mention of the Hotel’s mistake then.

We went out for the day and returned at approximately 9.00pm in order to check-in. We were told that the Hotel had been double-booked and as it was the Radisson’s mistake. they had arranged for us to stay in similar rooms with similar facilities and same star category at the City Inn, Birmingham. We were told that a taxi had been ordered on account and would arrive to take us to the City Inn.

The taxi did arrive and we were taken to the City Inn, at which point, the driver insisted on payment and would not accept that this had been paid on account. This issue was resolved when I checked out as the taxi fare was deducted from my hotel bill.

The rooms were not twin bedded nor connecting which I found particularly disturbing as I had to share a bed with my Personal Assistant (and his snoring).

Secondly, this contravenes the DDA, which I did point out to the Radisson in my original booking – therefore, surely under the DDA the second room should have been free of charge. This matter has made me incredibly angry indeed and this is the reason why the DDA exists in order to preserve the rights of the disabled person as people like the Radisson take advantage.

I was equally disturbed by the fact that the Radisson reception staff looked me directly in the face and misled me about the taxi and about the same standard of room. I am not only seeking compensation but I am also seriously considering taking legal action against the Radisson.

In any case, I will not be staying at a Radisson ever again, but should this be mistaken as a complaint from one individual please be aware that all family, friends and colleagues will learn about this treatment and I am sure that they will also decide not to use the Radisson in the future.

Therefore, i asked them to consider the issues raised above and get back to me their comments.

I am stIll waiting........

Twin beds?

Further to my post last week about hotel refusal, I can confirm that the Radisson did in fact come back to me and after seeking advice, they were able to offer a twin accessible room rather than an accessible plus a PA room. I believe that this meets adequate to meet their legal requirements under the DDA but I still do not feel that this is not best practice, as a PA is completely separate from the disabled person unless they require assistance at that particular time. Therefore, best practice would dictate that the PA should be accommodated within a separate room in order to preserve the privacy and dignity of the disabled person. The decision by the hotel means that I will have to put up with the drone of my PA’s constant snoring – cocktail sticks need to be packed to keep my eyes open the next day!

My experimence of the No Limits 2008 show

I was travelling from Cheam, Surrey to No Limits show which was held at the Excel Centre in the Docklands. I used the train and tube to get to Canary Wharf on the way there. Then I went to Heron Quays DLR station. The lift to the platform was out of order, so it meant I had to travel the other direction one stop and then return. I did this, but the route between the platforms was terrible. There was no obvious or well signed route between the platform and the dropped curbs were blocked off due to road works. However the route between platforms is covered under DDA part 3, as tested in the Central Trains v Roads case. I then proceeded to Customs House DLR station and walked to the Excel Centre.
Overall the DLR, which is meant to be a state of the art, fully accessible railway, was not accessible at all, in my opinion.- for various reasons e.g. Lack of colour contrast, lift dimensions were too small, poor platform marking etc.
I think the DLR needs to take a good look at its access and make changes accordingly, as accessibility was achieved when it was built, however it should surely evolve with time.
The show itself was a disappointment. Mainly, due to the lack of disabled visitors. In my opinion, the reason for this was because of the poor location of the Excel centre, as it is not easy to get to.

Visit to The British Library

Last Tuesday I was travelling to the British Library which is across the road from the new St Pancras International Station. After experiencing my poor level of service at St Pancras station, I proceeded to depart the station to walk over the road to the British Library. The pathways have been newly paved and all the dropped kerbs were in fact dropped kerbs i.e. completely flush with the road surface. They were also very wide and obstruction free. However, all the way through from the station there was a clear lack of visual contrast, as everything (paving, kerbs, railings etc), was a light grey colour and there was no differientation between the objects.

I then passed the front of the British Library (where there was a non-accessible entrance with steps) and I saw a sign with the wheelchair symbol telling me to go around the building. It was lucky it was not raining that day as the route was quite long and it was uncovered.

When I got into the British Library, there was a courtyard outside where there were some steps (which did not serve any purpose) but again there were no warnings at the top of these steps to alert you to the fact of their presence. From the point of view of a wheelchair user, these steps cannot be seen.

I then walked around the courtyard, again uncovered, to go into the entrance to the British Library. At which point, the security guards carried out their security checks but I was slightly concerned that as a disabled person, they just did their check without telling me what they were doing i.e. they seemed frightened to talk to me. Anyway, after this, I went up in the lift which did meet the required dimensions under the access regulations. However, it did seem rather small and maybe unuseable in some situations. I then went up in the lift to the Business and IP Centre in order to meet with Rachel Elnaugh who I was seeking business advice from. Her advice was extremely helpful and gave me a positive way forward. The only point I would make about the room I went to was that, again, the dimensions were all correct as per the access regulations but a sofa was positioned right by the turning circle so by using my wheelchair I found it difficult to manoeuvre in and out of the room. This is the type of barrier that staff need to be aware of within organisations such as the British Library i.e. that small steps of repositioning the sofa shows that they want to include disabled people within the services that they provide.