FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: kurnal on March 04, 2008, 08:24:42 PM
-
I wonder if anyone has a view on the two following scenarios
A new hotel insists on placing rooms specially modified for disabled persons on on each floor of a 10 storey hotel. I advise them that this is crazy - and recommend 10 rooms on the ground floor. Instead they provide 10 rooms, 10 refuges, 10 evac chairs one on each floor and if all rooms are occupied the one night porter will have a nightmare racing round the building helping one person on every floor. The Hotels answer is that under DDA they are a 10 storey hotel and to make rooms available should a disabled customer request a specific floor.
A training establishment similar to but NOT the fire service college decides to convert a number of rooms to incorporate disabled facilities. Like the hotel they provide one room on each floor of a multi storey block with lift. In this case, although they do not have a duty under the DDA because they do not offer a service to the Public, they do feel that their own equal opportunities policy creates a moral duty to put courses together in blocks and it would not be fair to place disabled students on a floor away from their peers. Again my view is that the sensible thing would be to upgrade ground floor rooms for disabled use.
All views welcome.
-
From building height firefighting shaft will be required with lift, could this not be used as part of EAP plan rather than evac chairs?
-
Ah damn. Good point Phil. In devising this hypothetical situation I overlooked that very good point.
The question is based in fact though- can we downgrade it to a 6 storey hotel building with a top floor height below 18m?
-
I wonder if anyone has a view on the two following amended scenarios-
A new hotel insists on placing rooms specially modified for disabled persons on on each floor of a 6 storey hotel. I advise them that this is crazy - and recommend 6 rooms on the ground floor. Instead they provide 6 rooms, 6 refuges, 6 evac chairs one on each floor and if all rooms are occupied the one night porter will have a nightmare racing round the building helping one person on every floor. The Hotels answer is that under DDA they are a 6 storey hotel and to make rooms available should a disabled customer request a specific floor.
Is this a reasonable approach to the duties imposed by the DDA or should they balance safety requirements with the access rights of an individual?
A training establishment similar to but NOT the fire service college decides to convert a number of rooms to incorporate disabled facilities. Like the hotel they provide one room on each floor of a multi storey block with lift. In this case, although they do not have a duty under the DDA because they do not offer a service to the Public, they do feel that their own equal opportunities policy creates a moral duty to put courses together in blocks and it would not be fair to place disabled students on a floor away from their peers. Again my view is that the sensible thing would be to upgrade ground floor rooms for disabled use. Again what is the best way forward?
All views welcome.
-
Despite Kurnal's logical and rational solution it could fall foul of the DDA police. The fact that disabled persons are being treated differently from able bodied persons could be a cause for complaint. Some could argue that, because of their disability, they are being denied equal access to parts of the hotel that others do.
I think the hotel is correct.
-
Despite Kurnal's logical and rational solution it could fall foul of the DDA police. The fact that disabled persons are being treated differently from able bodied persons could be a cause for complaint. Some could argue that, because of their disability, they are being denied equal access to parts of the hotel that others do.
I think the hotel is correct.
I disagree nearlythere. I believe that the DDA asks for 'reasonable adjustments' and doesn't expect that, in the case of this hotel, that everybody must be given access to every floor whatever their disability. I don't think that disabled people would expect this either. The hotel just has to provide rooms that have been 'reasonably adjusted' so that they can be used by guests with 'common' disabilities.
There are no DDA police. However, there are people who misinterpret the DDA requirements, and even sometimes to a ridiculous degree. These people need fighting, not least of all by the disabled themselves, to ensure that unreasonable demands supposedly made on behalf of the disabled, don't create a feeling that it is they, themselves, that are unreasonable!
-
I agree with nearlythere, access for all is supposed to be available. If I were suffering from a disability I would not want to be isolated in a ground floor room when other could have an upper floor room with a decent view. As an access auditor I am only to aware of the lengths that some will go to not allow access. DDA is supposed to champion inclusivity not separation. The balance that Kurnal desires is a cost one, service providers that take money from individuals are duty bound to provide the service they are selling. Being reasonable is also amount money, the more the Company has, the more reasonable they have to be.
Kurnal, your second question raises the same debate, it is not reasonable to isolate some students from their peer group colleagues just to fit a tag. If all the course delegates are on the ground floor then that would be reasonable. It is like you being on a JO course and being in Block K and your colleagues on the same course being housed in Block A.
-
I would like to disagree with everyone for a change!
Provision for people with disabilites, (predominately though not exclusively, mobility issues), is pretty ropey in most places. It is either a last minute panic such as "lets paint a wheelchair on the landing" or a dusty evac chair.
It only takes a little thought at design stage to make building accessible to all.
THe 6/10 storey hotel is taking a comendable approach but an evacuation lift would cost little more at design stage and would open up the possibilities of decades of disability friendly trade.
No new building of any appreciable size should be allowed without an evacuation lift, (or two!). FRA's should be pointing out how any future risk assessment could not be suitable and sufficient without a realistic plan to allow disabled persons to escape in much the same way as any fully mobile person.
-
The DDA does require premises to make "reasonable adjustment" to allow access, but what is reasonable?
There has, to my knowledge been no case brought under the DDA, so therefore no case law.
In the case of the scenario hotel, I would suggest that a wheelchair user has a room on the ground floor as this would aid evacuation as the person could be identified as "at particular risk" within the fire risk assessment. Rooms could be provided on other levels dependant on the requirements of the user, but bear in mind that disabled persons don't tend to like pointing the fact out and like to be treated normally.
How many hotels actually provide the facilities for guests with sight or hearing impediments such as rooms with flashing strobe lights or vibrating pads or pagers? In reality, not many and unfortunately it is something that, until challenged is an oversight. They rely on the persons accompanying the guests to make sure they escape, which is not acceptable.
Having done some research into the matter some time ago, disability covers a wide range of issues from physical ability to mental health and medical reasons. A person with a broken ankle is classed as disabled due to the fact that their mobility is impaired, albeit temporarily, but would this person need a ground floor room? I would say not.
I have dealt with a student accommodation block with a wheelchair user on the 8th floor. Not a problem as they were located right next to the protected stairway complete with refuge, had appointed persons to ensure welfare and a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan provided by the owners with staff instructed to make contact as soon as possible when the fire alarm actuated to account for the individuals location.
I agree with Val in that failing to provide an emergency action plan accounting for these persons will render the FRA not suitable and sufficient, it also relies on sufficient numbers of staff to implement those procedures.
-
The DDA does require premises to make "reasonable adjustment" to allow access, but what is reasonable?
There has, to my knowledge been no case brought under the DDA, so therefore no case law.
In the case of the scenario hotel, I would suggest that a wheelchair user has a room on the ground floor as this would aid evacuation as the person could be identified as "at particular risk" within the fire risk assessment. Rooms could be provided on other levels dependant on the requirements of the user, but bear in mind that disabled persons don't tend to like pointing the fact out and like to be treated normally.
How many hotels actually provide the facilities for guests with sight or hearing impediments such as rooms with flashing strobe lights or vibrating pads or pagers? In reality, not many and unfortunately it is something that, until challenged is an oversight. They rely on the persons accompanying the guests to make sure they escape, which is not acceptable.
Having done some research into the matter some time ago, disability covers a wide range of issues from physical ability to mental health and medical reasons. A person with a broken ankle is classed as disabled due to the fact that their mobility is impaired, albeit temporarily, but would this person need a ground floor room? I would say not.
I have dealt with a student accommodation block with a wheelchair user on the 8th floor. Not a problem as they were located right next to the protected stairway complete with refuge, had appointed persons to ensure welfare and a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan provided by the owners with staff instructed to make contact as soon as possible when the fire alarm actuated to account for the individuals location.
I agree with Val in that failing to provide an emergency action plan accounting for these persons will render the FRA not suitable and sufficient, it also relies on sufficient numbers of staff to implement those procedures.
The description of disability certainly has got very broad but the broken ankle bit does not make a person disabled by legal definition. Disability is defined in law as being an infirmity which has lasted or has the potential to last more than 12 months.
-
Kurnal
I assume the premises in question have Evac type chairs.
Having buddies is OK provided they are trained in the use of such chairs. I suggest in both cases this would be unlikely.
Do you discriminate between guests with classmates and the individual just stopping for one night?
Nearlythere
Were these appointed persons staff and did they have to climb eight floors, ignore the rest of the guests and put themselves at risk?
Val
Spot on with new builds; however, is it reasonable to convert an existing lift/s? For a normal hotel probably, for a hostel type as in Kurnal's post I would doubt. Certainly a generic PEEP should be in place to be tailored to the guest.
In conclusion I feel that Baldyman is nearest the mark
davo
-
I agree with nearlythere, access for all is supposed to be available. If I were suffering from a disability I would not want to be isolated in a ground floor room when other could have an upper floor room with a decent view. As an access auditor I am only to aware of the lengths that some will go to not allow access. DDA is supposed to champion inclusivity not separation........
On this basis all rooms on all floors should be adapted for potential use by disabled people of every disability. Lets face it, the view is slightly different from each room on the upper floor and obviously 'inclusivity' to this extent means that every different view must be available to everyone. In fact, even to those with vision impairment.
......Being reasonable is also about money, the more the Company has, the more reasonable they have to be......
So what has to be done is not about what it is actually needed to provide reasonable equal inclusivity for disabled persons, it is based on how much can be squeezed out of the person who has to pay for it!
I was wrong - there are obviously DDA police! And they are nothing like Dixon of Dock Green!
Please note that I am a great supporter of facilities being provided for disabled persons to enable them to be more fully part of the community. I believe great strides forward have been made because of the DDA. When the term 'reasonable' was used in the Act, I had hoped it would be understood, by all sides, to mean sensible compromise in terms of cost against benefit. But because the Act doesn't provide specific definitions of exactly what is required to ensure inclusivity for the disabled it has been, typically, left wide open for interpretation of those needs and the extent of those needs.
My fear is that the 'DDA police' will just try to continually force unreasonably costly demands and create a 'backlash' against those with disabilities. This might also result in marginalisation of the disabled instead of inclusivity.
-
From my point of view the DDA is a nightmare, examples:
door edges must be of a contrasting colour to door faces.
handles etc. must be "warm".
everything must be openable with a cleanched fist.
A very large part of DDA appears to be written to make everything as expensive as possible, which I presume is indicative that people like me had a very large input into it, and are now lining their pockets with the proceeds!
-
From my point of view the DDA is a nightmare, examples:
door edges must be of a contrasting colour to door faces.
handles etc. must be "warm".
everything must be openable with a cleanched fist.
And it seems, from previous postings, that the 'nightmare' requirements are applicable to every room, by their interpretation!
......A very large part of DDA appears to be written to make everything as expensive as possible, which I presume is indicative that people like me had a very large input into it, and are now lining their pockets with the proceeds!
I have read the DDA and it doesn't ask for any of the specific 'requirements' mentioned in these posts. All of these requirements are 'interpretations' by someone of what might be required to meet the actual DDA requirement for 'reasonable adjustments'.
Baldyman mentions that there apparantly has not yet been any case law made in respect of the DDA and interpretation thereof.
I can't believe those affected are not fighting these ridiculous interpretations and just continue to waste money on 'unreasonable adjustments'.
If I owned a hotel I would only provide the appropriate number of rooms available for disabled persons based on the number of those affected persons as a percentage of the general population and those rooms would be 'reasonably adjusted'. This wouldn't include 'contrasting colour edges to door faces' or 'warm handles openable by a clenched fist' !!! and then I would employ a lawyer to fight the DDA Stazi, if necessary.
-
So Wiz, lets see, 11 million people with some form of disability...that makes between one in five to one in six of the entire population of this country! Thats a lot of bedrooms but thank you for the offer.
Inclusive does not mean every room but it definitely doesn't mean a couple of rooms in a subterranian corridor with an extra handle next to the toilet! Nor does it mean that any form of disability must be considered. Reasonable does mean a fair chunk of those 11 million.
"Of all the people who may be especially at
risk you will need to pay particular attention
to people who have special needs including
those with a disability. The Disability Rights
Commission estimates that 11 million people
in this country have some form of disability,
which may mean that they find it more difficult
to leave a building if there is a fire. Under the
Disability Discrimination Act, if disabled people
could realistically expect to use the service (or
premises) you provide, then you must anticipate
any reasonable adjustments that would make it
easier for that right to be exercised."
-
Val, I agree with everything you say.
If it's 1 in 6 that have disabilities then at least 1 in 6 rooms in 'my' hotel would have appropriate facilities. But not every room. This is even if the 'DDA police' say disabled people might want to choose any room just because non-disabled people have that choice. I couldn't afford to convert every room and I believe I only have to make 'reasonable' adjustments.
Disabled people have now been given some 'sensible' rights through the DDA. It's important that we don't allow the 'DDA police' to spoil the idea of treating disabled people equally by demanding and forcing money to be spent on unreasonable adjustments. Ultimately, we all have to pay for these adjustments and I fear the disabled might eventually suffer if the general public feel that they are having to pay for something that is not actually necessary.
-
My particular favourite inclusion within interpretation of DDA is those fantastic pimply bits of pavement at road crossings which get slippy when it's frosty and cause untold damaged to your buttocks when you land on your backside because of them.
Sorry - nothing to do with fire but I had to get that off my chest!
-
The clenched fist parts and others come from the Inclusive design scenarios in part M to the Building Regulations. I agree with Val in that to ensure that all can evacuate where required then all new builds should include the provision of an evac lift in preference to a normal passenger lift. Have a read of the articles published in the IFE journal some months back.
-
The two big chains of Motel type accommodation in the UK place disabled rooms to ground level close to the staffed reception. They always have, have hundreds of premises and no-one has objected.
DDA is a pain in the rear because it is often over analysed and results in disproportionate works & millions have been spent in buildings across the UK where there is actually only really a 1 or 2% chance of there ever being a disabled person using it - it will remain a fact that most of the working population are reasonably able.
Fear of DDA legal action has led to buildings that could never be adapted for emergency egress without knocking the place down and starting again being made accessible in normal conditions increasing the risk to persons.
As far as a hotel would be concerned surely you would look at it like this;
Service provided: Overnight sleeping accommodation with restaurant facilities
Adjustment required: a proportion of adapted rooms to allow the above service to be offered
So by adapting ground floor rooms you have taken reasonable adjustments to offer the service - it doesn't matter that they are all to ground as the hotel is meeting its obligation by providing overnight accommodation.
You don't normally get to choose your room anyway and most hotels are just places to sleep & eat, so it doesn't matter where you are - to paraphrase Basil Fawlty what do you expect to see - 'the hanging gardens of Babylon? herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically across the plain?'
-
I was "lucky" enough to get a consultation copy of part M, that was even worse than the version that got published.
If anyone wants a more friendly document Manchester City Council have an online pdf file outlining their interpretation of Doc M
-
Hi to all, Sorry I have come in on this one a little late,
Firstly the DDA is good in principle, but factually (and this is my own personal views) c*ap, (PLEASE FORGIVE ME FOR THIS!)
This is why the DRC (Disability Rights Commission) is now been technically disbanded! (from Oct 07) and now all disability issues are covered by basic human right's (which is more politically correct, as the word "disabled" immediateley catagorises one in the first instance)
Right The "said" Hotel, is sort of in a Dammed if they do, Dammed if they dont, senario, as they are "appearing" to comply with what society would want them to do, and as,
Jokar Quoted, (something like) "If I were suffering from a disability......I would like a room with a view!" (sorry I cant work out how to transfer ones text here)
I say Quite right too!, but if the "said" hotel would think a human with mobility issues would be satisfied with the knowledge that if there was a fire, then they would have to "manhandled out, down stairs (possibly causing someone to FIT!) WITHOUT their £6,000 powerchair, (so they would then have to be put into a chair that would need some other poor soul to push them for the duration)
Then they can get stuffed ! what planet are they on!
I am writing this, taking for granted that the reference of "evacuation" lifts are the lifts that one CAN use in the event of a fire, (sorry I do not have the technical information)
The hotel should not consider to build a room on each floor if they are not intending to supply an evacuation lift! If they have the money to build a hotel (their business plan would already establish that it would be a goldmine) they they should make the decision to install one or even two evacuation lifts!
Now, talking about the thousands of different "health or mobility related" problems out there, that lots of humans suffer from, it is a minefield!
For instance, You could have a person, that is a wheelchair user, that is 100% entitled to use a wheelchair for genuine bonafide reasons, Just for instance they need it for 90% of daytime/out and about use, they possibly would be quietly confident that IN AN EMERGENCY (if push comes to shove) they they might actually be able, with help from another, (with in no doubt, emense difficulty) WALK down the stairs!
Then there is someone that would NOT be able to get out of their chair as it might cause them such bad effect, it would be a danger to anyone trying to help them out, eg; having a FIT (ever tried to try and lift or help anyone having a fit) !!!!!
As for "reasonable ajustments" under the DDA, this is what cheap skate's think would cover them legally, (but really if they gave the matter decent genuine thought, they should decide to do a Disabled accessible rooms on all floors with the, possible 2 evacuation lifts)
OR
All the Disabled accomodation on the one floor!
If they are adamant on the hotel having 10 floors with Disabled accomodation, with just stairs, then they really are "appearing to be offering disabled persons, the choice, that would cover them with reasonable adjustment, and discrimination laws" but in reality they want to cut corners, you could say, pardon the pun, "putting up a smoke screen"
-
Crikey - thought I was grumpy!!!
-
Ha Ha, Oh Im definately not grumpy, Dont do grumpy. Just tried to state things as factually as I could :)
-
Ha Ha, Oh Im definately not grumpy, Dont do grumpy. Just tried to state things as factually as I could :)
only teasing!
-
Whilst we are (or should be) convinced about putting in evac lifts in a new build, what about in a hotel newly acquired as opposed to a hostel type situation?
Using Kurnal's original question, converting an ordinary lift could cost say £80K. To a large hotel using cost benefit analysis, they would get a return in say three years, extra couple of nicker on the rates.
To a hostel, say 20 quid a night all in, could the cost could be described as disproportionate? Especially if they are unable to increase rates to cover the expense for whatever reason
I once saw a book called A short Guide to the Building Regs, it had nearly 600 pages.
Perhaps there is one out there for DDA?
-
There is, it is a few words. "be inclusive and be reasonable"
-
Donna - if you want to quote text, click on 'Quote' at the bottom right of the post (in blue) then just start typing (took me 2 months to work that one out!).
-
What about ASET and RSET?
In Kurnal's example, the worst possible scenario would be 10 wheelchair users (and perhaps partner/helper) in the building. A reasonable enough challenge when evacuating from one floor.
But to spread them across the entire building seems to be adding unecessary and unreasonable difficulties to the emergency plan. Significant numbers of Hotel staff would be required to supervise a simultaneous evacuation. Even with an evac lift, the time taken to call at every floor would perhaps be longer than would be suitable.
To promote DDA type fairness and a safe system of evacuation, why not group DDA rooms together? - Say 4 on the 8th and 6 on the ground floor.
Using that method, there is a choice of floors (views) for the punters and a workable evacuation plan for the management = Everyone's happy (aren't they?)
-
Donna - if you want to quote text, click on 'Quote' at the bottom right of the post (in blue) then just start typing (took me 2 months to work that one out!).
Bingo! I learn something new everyday,
Cheers Dragonmaster,
-
Whilst we are (or should be) convinced about putting in evac lifts in a new build, what about in a hotel newly acquired as opposed to a hostel type situation?
Using Kurnal's original question, converting an ordinary lift could cost say £80K. To a large hotel using cost benefit analysis, they would get a return in say three years, extra couple of nicker on the rates.
To a hostel, say 20 quid a night all in, could the cost could be described as disproportionate? Especially if they are unable to increase rates to cover the expense for whatever reason
I once saw a book called A short Guide to the Building Regs, it had nearly 600 pages.
Perhaps there is one out there for DDA?
Firstly I hope all that read my post would understand that I was making a reference to a hypothetical New Build, whereas they Hotellier could afford it in the onset, and would reap the benefits in the long term...Yes they should have an evacuation lift/lifts!
Please remember that If someone is going into the planning of these specially adaped rooms, then they already know that each room would HAVE to have an Specially adapted wheelchair accessible Toilet and bathroom, wheras some would HAVE to have low level showers for the person with the difficulties, but ALSO would HAVE to have some of their rooms with either large baths with hoists for persons that have some certain Neurological conditions that cannot tollerate the falling of showered water on them!
(Now as this would be a well thought out business venture, a person with difficulties would need to know they had different style bathroom/toilets as this is a must, bearing in mind that if one goes to a hotel, they would expect this as standard, as it it regarded as a luxury stay from home)
But you now mention Hostels of £20 a night, there is no point them offering a room to people with difficulties (which we Know they MUST cater for) if they are expecting NOT to have a self contained separate Toilet/bathroom facilities as these go hand in hand with any adapted room, so is they had (say) three specially adapted rooms, then they would HAVE to have three Private adjoining bathrooms, and the reality is, that they are not going to be able to afford that! for £20 a night accomodation, but the fact is, any overnight stay for a person that is a wheelchair user HAS to have a Toilet/Bathroom for their sole use!
So for a Hostel offering budget accomodation, then One adapted ground floor room with one adjoining adapted toilet/bathing room, would be "reasonable" but if they had NO room because they could not afford the rather large expense of the bathroom/Toilet that they would need to be compliant, then personally, I would not intend holding them to the law as that WOULD be "UNREASONABLE"
You cant have one without the other,
-
DDA is a pain in the rear because it is often over analysed and results in disproportionate works & millions have been spent in buildings across the UK where there is actually only really a 1 or 2% chance of there ever being a disabled person using it - it will remain a fact that most of the working population are reasonably able.
AnthonyB,
Ever thought that might be because disabled persons cannot, in most buildings actually get reasonable access and egress? A fair proportion are condemned to stay at home and watch Trisha all day. Surely that is disprportionate?
Whatever next...we'll be arguing that sprinklers are not cost effective!
Reasonable in my mind means doing 'something' not aguing that it is 'reasonable' to do nothing.
-
DDA is a pain in the rear because it is often over analysed and results in disproportionate works & millions have been spent in buildings across the UK where there is actually only really a 1 or 2% chance of there ever being a disabled person using it - it will remain a fact that most of the working population are reasonably able.
AnthonyB,
Ever thought that might be because disabled persons cannot, in most buildings actually get reasonable access and egress? A fair proportion are condemned to stay at home and watch Trisha all day. Surely that is disprportionate?
Whatever next...we'll be arguing that sprinklers are not cost effective!
Reasonable in my mind means doing 'something' not aguing that it is 'reasonable' to do nothing.
Not wanting to change directions (and I am not intending a debate on what Ive now witten as thats another story for another day) but does anyone realise how many people with difficulties have been waiting 3 years so they can actually access their OWN bathrooms, bedrooms and Kitchens in a wheelchair, but at least in the privacy of their own homes they can crawl on their own carpet, (something that NO ONE should do in public) ok at home (until adaptation takes place) they cant get to the sink or the cooker, or see out of a window, and these delays are because of unfair budgetting! and its people that, after all this difficulty in their own homes (not all can remortgage and many are sadly reliant on rented accomodation and on benefits) are the ones that want to enjoy the same as all other humans, but often get told by some people,
" you Disabled people, you want it all your own way! as soon as you lot have been given rights, us businesses have had to fork out just because you think you should be allowed to do what walking people can" No word of a lie...I actually heard someone actually say that!
For most persons with difficulties, its always a double whammy,
I am retiring now for the night, I will return tomorrow,
-
Okay here is my view, and I think Anthony B is on the same wave length as me...
A hotel is a place where you spend an overnight stay and unless the "view" is offered as part of that service, then this should not be a factor. If people are allocated a room on arrival then in my mind the accessible rooms could be located anywhere as long as they form part of the main hotel area. If the hotel is a sea front hotel, and the sea front view is offered as a feature, then I would say the situation is different.
If all the accessible rooms are on the ground floor, it saves on the cost of a lift installation, which some on this forum believe should be capable of evacuation (despite the fact that the government are still happy for new buildings to be built using the flawed refuge system). In my opinion whilst the legislation/technical guidance allows people to adopt refuges that is exactly what they will do. This money saved could then be better spent on ensuring the facilities within the rooms are more suitable rather than spending thousands on giving someone the right to view out of their hotel window. If we head down the route of saying people have a right to a view, all the rooms would have to be accessible because surely you would be entitled to your choice of view.
I agree with Anthony B that millions has been spent trying to avoid claims under the DDA rather than trying to improve access to buildings and their facilities for the majority.
You can not cater for every outcome, the object is not to create an obstruction and to take reasonable steps to improve access and use of the facilities. If you have a 200 bedroom hotel, the national guidance would assume that you make 5% of these rooms accessible. That is 10 bedrooms that woudl be wheelchair accessible, regardless of whether you have refuges or evacuation lifts the evacuation of those customers will be a time consuming process in an emergency that will need careful management. Would it not be better to put the rooms at a level where safe egress can be achieved fairly easily with a minimal amount of reliance on management.
The reason we have not yet seen a case go to court is due to the fact that companies fear the bad press. Who would want to make a stand in court against a wheelchair user. How many of us would genuinely side with a corporation when they are arguing costs against the rights of a wheelchair user? Can you imagine what the media would be like. That is not to say the corporation is wrong, I would reiterate that I think the money should be spent where it achieves the greater good, not trying to cover every eventuality. That is why these issues are always settled out of court and will continue to do so unless someone raises an absolutely ludicrous claim.
-
I'm heartened that so many postings agree that alterations to accomodate DDA don't need to apply to every room in a hotel. I believe this also applies to every entrance to a building, every toilet in a building, every house on a new housing estate etc. etc.. If we are sensible about the accommodation of disabilities, more will get done and it might get done willingly instead of grudgingly
Donna - if you want to quote text, click on 'Quote' at the bottom right of the post (in blue) then just start typing (took me 2 months to work that one out!).
You can also delete those areas of the quote that you don't want to highlight, as long as you leave the brackets [ ], and the words between them, at the beginning and the end of the quoted items.
By using HTML instructions you can also add bold , underline and italics to your postings.
To do this you need to add the HTML instruction, inside square brackets i.e [ ] At the beginning of what you what to highlight. you put the letter 'b' for bold, 'u' for underline, or 'i' for italics inside those square brackets. However, you must also 'turn off' the instruction at the end of what you want to highlight by putting '/b' for bold, '/u' for underline or '/i' for italics inside squared brackets at the end of what you want to highlight.
-
You most probably havn't seen a case go to court, simply because the businesses offer anything from £1,000 to £6,000 out of court under the DDA concilliation process, 99% of would be court cases, are in fact settled this way, and the disabled person (I hate using that word) has to sign a legally binding promise not to discuss the matter or the amount before they get their money paid directly to their either private solicitor or DRC solicitor!
Whilst one would seem this is good for the Disabled person, (financially) but by doing this, Hardly ANY cases get brought to court, therefore a true figure of businesses out there are then allowed to continue to stick their middle finger up to the law...as there is, THIS way out! this then gives false statistics.
It is normally cheaper for the Business that has offended, to offer these amounts of money, rather than paying for the cost of the "reasonable adjustment" and also receive a hefty fine from the courts,
I personally would WANT the matter to be brought to court to make public, but it takes two years, and the person bringing the claim is grossly intimidated by the opposition, not to mention the most thorough medical examination and detailed medical report as it is on the onus of the person making the claim to prove their disability, and the report does NOT allow the GP to state, "I Dr xxx can swear to the court that Mr xxx has been diagnosed with **** and has been a wheelchair user for 7 years" NOR is the person allowed to simply show that they are in receipt of all the qualifying disablement benefits such as Higher rate DLA (Disabled Living Allowence) even though they have already undergone an independant medical from the DWP, The report even has to include what part of the ***** symptoms was the "said" person was actually suffering with on the particular day of the "said" discimination!
Many people dont get to actually hear what the process is, when someone is applying the DDA 2005 PART blah blah blah "Reasonable adjustments"
I hope this information is beneficial to someone.
The above reasons are why there are not many court cases!
The person with the Disability rarely can cope with the process!
-
Ok then, place your accessible rooms with the accessible facilities on the ground floor and then everyone can get out!! What about the situtaion then with an expectant mother a temporarily disabled person, an overweight person, an obese person or the aged, or even the very young. The evacuation strategy should consider all vulnerable groups not just stick a few in rooms to suit yourself. We seem to have a few people thinking that people have a disablity because they want one. Too many Glen Hoddle's out there.
-
I personally would WANT the matter to be brought to court to make public, but it takes two years, and the person bringing the claim is grossly intimidated by the opposition, ...The above reasons are why there are not many court cases!
The person with the Disability rarely can cope with the process!
I can personnally vouch for the difficulties that disabled persons face when taking on a government department over a discrimation claim.
Without laying myself open to a misconduct charge, this particular severely disabled person, (who hadn't taken a day off sick in years) was faced with the might of a specialist 'London' law firm without any representation themselves. Their union representative, judged, (probably rightly) that the case was unwinnable on the grounds of a purely legal issue and refused to represent their member.
The government department relied on a court of appeal case, (Jones vs Post Office) which effectively stated that if an employer had followed procedure and carried out a proper risk assessment, however flawed the outcome of that assessment, tribunals had no power to dispute it.
So government department's solicitors trotted out this 'defence in law' leaving the disabled person with nowhere to go and the tribunal effectively wasting their time. All attempts by the disabled person to cross examine the department's witnesses, who all had very good statements, was doomed to failure.
It was all strictly legal but one of the most offensive episodes that I have seen in Court. No wonder that disabled persons take the money and run.
-
Ok then, place your accessible rooms with the accessible facilities on the ground floor and then everyone can get out!! What about the situtaion then with an expectant mother a temporarily disabled person, an overweight person, an obese person or the aged, or even the very young. The evacuation strategy should consider all vulnerable groups not just stick a few in rooms to suit yourself. We seem to have a few people thinking that people have a disablity because they want one. Too many Glen Hoddle's out there.
This is the EXACT reason that I am glad that the DRC now comes under basic human rights, These accessible rooms should be for ANYONE's use, as I have said before "Persons with difficulties" and "persons with problems" hence being big enough wether it needs a wide door for wheelchair access or someone that is suffering obesity, theres thousands of people out there with so so many different problems, but sadly as they may not come under the umbrella of what people perceive as "real disabled people" and thats not right!
I never meant for anyone think that I would demand " a few rooms to suit myself"
I just came on here to give my view that if a NEW hotel wants to build a room on each floor, because they want to be seen as offering choice so NOT to be discriminating, then just stairs would not be good enough! and Id be happy with ground floor as I would regard the fact that they DID have an accessible room, would suffice!
But then again, someone else might create merry hell, everyone is different, different views, different personalities, all unique individuals, I think the sooner society can stop putting "labels" on people, the better!
But if, due to someones circumstances they HAD to go in an entrance (that nobody else gets the pleasure of using) that had lighting of approx 1 lux, so they couldnt hardly see, and then have the door locked behind them, in two consecutive corridors, so they couldnt get out if they wanted, in a hurry, notwithstanding the fact that the "said" corridor was partially blocked with tables and chairs anyway, so a wheelchair couldnt do a 360% to turn, then YES, if that happened to me, then I would create merry hell, Who wouldnt? Thats what I term as discrimination, not the fact that someone couldnt have a room with a view! That personally wouldn't bother me, I would only really be concerned with the Health and Safety, safe in, safe out issues.
and Jokar, as for saying, "we seem to have a few people, thinking that people have a disability because they WANT one"
I can assure you, not being able to drive anymore, not being able to swallow sometimes, (liquid food for up to 6 months at a time) because risk of dying from choking, having tunnel vision, often with black dots and zig-zags, having muscle spasms (where you legs and arms go rock hard) and then weakness that sometimes you cant sit up properly, and violent non stop pins and needles..... Want a problem like that! I dont think so! I am so shocked that anyone would think it, let alone say it.
Well, I will toddle off now, I only wanted to make a comment about the "new hotel" senario,
Enjoy your weekend,
BYE
-
When I started this thread I never imagined that it would provided us with such deep insights and education and I thank everyone for their contributions.
I still hold my original opinion that the new hotel, (which is a real building for one of the big chains and for which the foundations are now going in) would have been much better to have placed its six adapted rooms on the ground floor rather than one per floor. But in the absence of an evacuation lift - which it does not have because that was ruled out on cost and layout grounds very early on in the project- even if it did put all its adapted rooms on the ground floor wopuld still need the refuges on all floors for the benefit of other who may need to use them because for whatever reason they cannot move as quickly as others.
The other problem I have is that there does not appear to be any committment to put in place sufficient staffing to manage the evacuation of persons from six floors and very little interest in a good level of staff training so they can competently take note of, record and offer support to guests to meet their needs.
All persons and customers are entitled to make choices but when exercising that choice potentially places another at risk- who may not have a say in the matter be they night porter or fire fighter then that is taking human rights too far. In my opinion.
As for the hostel situation the same thing applies. Whilst I would very much prefer to stay in the same block as the rest of my course I think if that places me at risk because the establishment cannot provide adequate support and assistance to help me in an emergency then they should not offer me choice of accommodation on the upper floor. And to get round any fairness problems then they could mix all courses up between rooms- though that would make the majority suffer just for the sake of being seen to be fair to all.
The only way to ensure safety of all is - as Donna says- to provide evacuation lifts, or to make available sufficient staff and additional facilities to assist all persons in an emergency- or not to allow people to make choices that place themselves and others at risk just in the name of equality?
Keep your opinions coming- please!
-
There are circumstances where the disabled can be treated less favourably without contravening the DDA, these are:
Where the Health and Safety of the disabled person, or that of another person, would be compromised.
Where the disabled person is unable to understand a contract.
Where it would mean ruining or no longer providing the service
Where greater expense is involved in providing service to a disabled customer.
However, when making any choice based on these criteria, all relevant information must be considered before reaching a decision
If that decision is, to only provide rooms on the ground floor for Health and Safety reasons, then only the hotel owners will know if that is the real reason or a cop out.
-
Donna, you misread my post, I am on your side. Its those who think that there is an easy answer that I have problems with. I have experienced discrimination at first hand as my father in law was a wheelchair user.
-
Donna, you misread my post, I am on your side. Its those who think that there is an easy answer that I have problems with. I have experienced discrimination at first hand as my father in law was a wheelchair user.
Oh thanks for explaining....I obviously DID misread your post, I feel much better today for knowing that!
-
Ok then, place your accessible rooms with the accessible facilities on the ground floor and then everyone can get out!! What about the situtaion then with an expectant mother a temporarily disabled person, an overweight person, an obese person or the aged, or even the very young. The evacuation strategy should consider all vulnerable groups not just stick a few in rooms to suit yourself. We seem to have a few people thinking that people have a disablity because they want one. Too many Glen Hoddle's out there.
I'm sorry Jokar, but I feel your opinions are exactly those that do more harm than good. You have consistantly promoted a view that I consider to be an unreasonable interpretation of the DDA. You have previously intimated that every room in a hotel has to be adaped, whatever the cost, to suit any disability just in case any person decides that they want to use that particular room. Now your seem to think that the scope of who is 'disabled' covers anything. I suppose the next thing you will say is that a Sunderland FC supporter has the right to demand a hotel room where the colours black and white are not used anywhere just because they had an uncontrollable hatred (disability?) of Newcastle United F.C.
Please don't feel my comments are trying to be an attack on you personally - you are a long-term and valued contributor to this forum. And I also uphold your right to promote your opinons on this forum - they are equally valid as anyone else's. It's just that I strongly disagree with some of what you are saying and I feel that I have to make these feelings clear.
I believe some of your interpretations of the DDA would involve unnecessary cost to businesses, which we all end up paying for. And it could be that such 'unreasonable' interpretations is what causes so many business owners to resist even reasonable adjustments because they are also being forced into unreasonable costs with adjustments that no customer will ever get the 'benefit' of.
Finally, I would confirm that I have personal experience of the problems and descrimination that disabled persons may face. My nearest circle of friends includes two wheelchair users and two who are visually-impaired. It is from their experiences that I have understood that they really only want 'reasonable adjustments' to be made and not that the whole world is forced to be changed just to accommodate their perceived possible needs and especially when it is to the unreasonable detriment of the majority.
-
I can only repeat the earlier words I used, be reasonable be inclusive. How that is done is a matter for those out there who need to do it. I have not suggested accessible rooms everywhere,what I have suggested is that all vulnerable people out there should be considered. If you get them in then you should get them out. How and by what means is down to the RP resonse. I know for a fact that some will do nothing and turn people away because that is their way, others take a different view and will be reasonable in their approach.
-
People
Doc M 4.24 suggests a minimum of one wheelchair accessible bedroom per twenty, see FAQs on Doc M, Planning Portal. Other interesting stuff there as well
Apologies I don't know how to paste links
davo