One of the main services my company offers is that of “Access Auditing” for all manners of organisations be them small, medium, large or public/private sector and it always amazes me just how little many businesses know about the Disability Discrimination Act and their requirements. It is somewhat worrying that many do not understand that they do have a duty under this Act and that they are often placing themselves in a position where they could face legal action.
So what should all businesses know about the Disability Discrimination Act............
Firstly, all businesses must wake up and realise that they need to know about the Disability Discrimination Act and that ignorance could mean they face a legal action for misconduct in the future.
From the personnel stance, the main thing to consider is that any business with less than 15 employees must not and cannot refuse employment to someone due to disability. It is a requirement that all reasonable adjustments are made to your business premises and business practice to ensure that it is accessible to all.
From the customer stance, making your business accessible can only be good. Recent research by the Equality & Human Rights Commission found that whilst 1 in every 10 businesses would prefer not to alter their premises to make them suitable, 8 in every 10 believed that by doing so they would have a positive impact on their business. Figures also show that the spending power of disabled people is estimated to be around £80 billion per year (Source DWP). Can you, as a business, afford to discriminate against potential customers?
As a business, the best and most effective action to take is to conduct an Access Audit by a qualified Auditor. This will result in a full report that will highlight what barriers exist and what action needs to be taken.
Concerns about adjustments are usually founded on misconceptions – the main one being that implementation of adjustments will cost a lot of money. However, this is rarely the case and simple and effective changes can be made at little or no cost at all. An effective Auditor will take into account your business annual turnover and all recommendations will take into account what will be deemed reasonable for you and your business.
As an idea, adjustments can be made simply by:-
1. Removing barriers i.e. removing an unnecessary step etc
2. Alternatives to existing i.e. adding a ramp, providing clearer signage etc
3. Avoid a potential barrier i.e. a simple change to the internal premises
4. Provision through other means i.e. larger print, web accessibility etc
There are very few exceptions to the Disability Discrimination Act and you are required to make reasonable adjustments even if your business has no disabled employees or customers. Whilst some buildings may have restrictions on alterations i.e. listed buildings, they are not completely exempt and solutions are expected to be found.
Like many, you could choose to ignore the Disability Discrimination Act but the consequences are far reaching as the Act makes it unlawful to treat a disabled person less favourably and DDA claims are on the increase and figures show that last year an average of over £33,000 was awarded (Source: Employment Tribunal Services).
Can your business afford to do nothing?
Showing posts with label physical barriers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label physical barriers. Show all posts
Friday, 29 May 2009
Wednesday, 4 February 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Snow Chaos
What a wonderful sight from my windows yesterday. Snow everywhere and the whole place looking like a winter wonderland. An eerie silence lay around as cars, buses and lorries avoided our roads. As the morning started I was able to hear the laughter and chatter as complete families braved the outside world to enjoy this spectacular. Snowball fights aplenty and an increase in our city population as snowmen appeared from no-where. Children who had never experienced this before delighted in their escapades with no thought to their wet-through gloves and scarves. Dogs scampered around, tails wagging delightedly as their romped through this unknown weather condition.
An ideal world indeed – people cheerfully interacted with neighbours they had never spoken to before and a peaceful outlook spread across our city.
But reality has to rear its ugly head. Our city is grounded to a halt by the extreme conditions. Trains, buses and airplanes are stranded as chaos descends on over 6 million commuters who have to decide to take a duvet day or struggle to find any possible means of getting to their workplaces. Skis would definitely have been the order of the day but many just took to their feet. It is estimated that this breakdown in our vital infrastructures will cost the economy £3 billion
Could our local authorities have done more? Possibly.
Should our Government provide better infrastructure systems to ensure that a complete melt-down does not occur? Definitely.
I, unfortunately, do not have the answers to solve the problems but I am sure over the coming days and months there will be much discussion as to who is to blame. Maybe we should put it down to Mr Frost and his merriment and laugh at ourselves but in our culture of blame someone will be held accountable.
As a wheelchair user weather conditions leave me frustrated and I am currently unable to leave my home. I am completely snowed in. The immediate pavements around my home are still completely frozen and the very idea of venturing out would be madness. A simple trip to the shops to get bread and milk are an impossibility and like many disabled people I am reliant on the kindness of family and friends to keep me stocked up.
Please do not think I am whinging about the weather just merely pointing out that inconveniences to some are far more apparent to disabled people all over the country and the hidden barriers that many do not consider the whole year through come to light at times like this.
An ideal world indeed – people cheerfully interacted with neighbours they had never spoken to before and a peaceful outlook spread across our city.
But reality has to rear its ugly head. Our city is grounded to a halt by the extreme conditions. Trains, buses and airplanes are stranded as chaos descends on over 6 million commuters who have to decide to take a duvet day or struggle to find any possible means of getting to their workplaces. Skis would definitely have been the order of the day but many just took to their feet. It is estimated that this breakdown in our vital infrastructures will cost the economy £3 billion
Could our local authorities have done more? Possibly.
Should our Government provide better infrastructure systems to ensure that a complete melt-down does not occur? Definitely.
I, unfortunately, do not have the answers to solve the problems but I am sure over the coming days and months there will be much discussion as to who is to blame. Maybe we should put it down to Mr Frost and his merriment and laugh at ourselves but in our culture of blame someone will be held accountable.
As a wheelchair user weather conditions leave me frustrated and I am currently unable to leave my home. I am completely snowed in. The immediate pavements around my home are still completely frozen and the very idea of venturing out would be madness. A simple trip to the shops to get bread and milk are an impossibility and like many disabled people I am reliant on the kindness of family and friends to keep me stocked up.
Please do not think I am whinging about the weather just merely pointing out that inconveniences to some are far more apparent to disabled people all over the country and the hidden barriers that many do not consider the whole year through come to light at times like this.
Friday, 30 January 2009
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 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.
Monday, 15 September 2008
My Danish Adventure
Whenever I have travelled within Europe, it has always proven difficult as there have been a lot of access barriers (not just the language).
From my research, Europe can be split into two broad areas; Northern -Scandinavia, Germany etc or Southern – France, Spain etc.
The research I have done showed that Northern Europe was very ahead in their thinking around disability and access so there should be very few barriers. Imagine my shock when on a recent visit to Copenhagen, I found this to be completely untrue!
It was the case that attitude, information and communication barriers had been eradicated. However, the physical barriers were very prevalent and very visible. In my experience suitable accommodation was very difficult to source.
When I arrived, as I had never visited before, I wanted to look around the city. The two main options were a tour bus or a river boat cruise. Both were inaccessible. Therefore, a third and far less appealing option had to be thought of and this was to do a “walk around” tour myself. It was impossible to see the whole city in a day - after all I am not Superman - and so we were only able to go and see a few of the sights. This presented me with a number of physical barriers such as poorly maintained pavements, ramp up a pavement and steps down the other side, seldom dropped kerbs etc.
My Auntie, who lives in Denmark, has put me in touch with someone who I can write a letter to within the Danish Government, to explain these issues and why Copenhagen does not reflect the perceived image that Scandinavia has relating to accessibility.
From my research, Europe can be split into two broad areas; Northern -Scandinavia, Germany etc or Southern – France, Spain etc.
The research I have done showed that Northern Europe was very ahead in their thinking around disability and access so there should be very few barriers. Imagine my shock when on a recent visit to Copenhagen, I found this to be completely untrue!
It was the case that attitude, information and communication barriers had been eradicated. However, the physical barriers were very prevalent and very visible. In my experience suitable accommodation was very difficult to source.
When I arrived, as I had never visited before, I wanted to look around the city. The two main options were a tour bus or a river boat cruise. Both were inaccessible. Therefore, a third and far less appealing option had to be thought of and this was to do a “walk around” tour myself. It was impossible to see the whole city in a day - after all I am not Superman - and so we were only able to go and see a few of the sights. This presented me with a number of physical barriers such as poorly maintained pavements, ramp up a pavement and steps down the other side, seldom dropped kerbs etc.
My Auntie, who lives in Denmark, has put me in touch with someone who I can write a letter to within the Danish Government, to explain these issues and why Copenhagen does not reflect the perceived image that Scandinavia has relating to accessibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
