Need Help to get some information in to solving this problem!!!

[John Webb]

I look after our local church hall, which we hire out for birthday parties and other functions. The hall is fitted with an alarm system, but not so far with beacons in the toilets. (The hall and smaller meeting room are so equiped.)

My FRA for the premises recommends the fitting of beacons to the toilets, because when we hire out we do not know exactly who will be using the hall, and I doubt very much if the one-off hirer could be persuaded to check the loos or would remember to do so if the fire alarm is sounding.

And for the several deaf people we have in the congregation who regularly use the hall and it's facilities, it will be a further reassurance we are thinking of their needs.

[ian_spleen]

Unfortunately fellas, cost and inconvenience is not a defence when considering 'reasonable adjustment'. This has been proven in court on numerous occasions.

Wee Brian referred to sundry changes to the code, but the DDA is not a code of practice like BS5839, it is legislation and it can and has been used to prosecute organisations not providing what the courts decide is equal access to goods and services. I could refer you to any number of these, including one instance where a prosecution was brought by the Disability Rights Commission (as was), who on arriving at court on the day of the hearing found that no provision had been made for fire warning or assisted hearing in the courtroom and had the hearing adjourned until such systems were installed.

Where such prosecutions have been brought, the judge will refer to BS5839 on the basis upon which the case will be decided. Is there a fire alarm system for hearing people? If so, has an equivalent system been provided for disabled people (usually meaning Deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals). If not (and plainly in this case it has not) then the case will be won. This has been demonstrated in numerous actions. The payouts are not large, but the adverse publicity is not well received and in most cases the organisation will make the changes required and settle out of court.

This employee is entitiled to equivalent access to the fire alarm, irrespective of the cost. If M&S chose to employ him, it is their responsibility to assess his needs and make due amendments to their systems and business practices accordingly. A failure on their part can result in prosecution. If Hunter would like to pursue this further then he has only to call the Equality and Human Rights Commission and they will advise M&S on his behalf as to what they deem suitable.

[kurnal]

Ian do you know of any websites or publications where these cases are recorded so we may learn from them?

[ian_spleen]

Well, it will be a bit of a challenge without betraying commercial confidentialities, which I'm not about to do (after all, we hardly know each other - blush). I know of many of these incidents as a result of being involved in the upgrading of their fire alarm systems in accordance with the terms of the DRC's requirements.

You could try a Google search under the Disability Rights Commission's archives, but I suspect it's a long process and I've no idea whether they publicised many of the instances, most of which were settled before coming to court. The DRC was notoriously litigious however. Most organisations chose to simply carry out their required amendments, as the DRC tended to win far more often than it lost apparently and it wasn't worth arguing the toss with them. I believe I'm right in saying the courtroom incident I referred to was in Winchester.

The salient point here however is this. The OP is entirely correct to question his employers adjustments to allow equal access to goods and services. If he feels that the response is inadequate, he is able to call in the E&HRC to get their opinion. If no adjustment has been made to the fire alarm system, as would be required under BS5839, then they would take that up with the employer. It is not sufficient to simply say that it will be addresed the next time the fire alarm needs changing, or when there's a building refurbishment. The DDA is law and it's implications are current, it cannot be ignored until a more convenient time.

What is more, the company servicing the fire alarm system should be advising on any changes to the buildig structure or usage which may affect compliance with BS5839 (see section 18). If there is no provision for disabled users then this should be noted as part of that process and the client should address this if any users require access to it.

If the building is a 'public access' building, such as a library, or town hall, then the DDA 2005 - The Disability Equality Duty, puts further obligations onto such employers and service providers (although a supermarket is not covered by this piece of legislation).

[Clevelandfire]

Exactly

Wee Brian talks about how we have all become fascists and that "elf and saftey" brigade have gone OTT

This is the 21st Century

Not so long ago we thought slavery was ok, not so long ago women couldn't vote and you would have had the wee brians of this world probably saying that was perfectly ok at that the time

Someone invented the intenet not so long ago. All of a sudden it was a must have technology, and a lot of buisnesses went through the motions of getting connected to it - quite costly really I pressume. But they did it to keep up with the times, and be seen to be trendy and cutting edge.

Theyre happy to spend money when it helps get a few more pounds coming in then but oh then in the next breath they dont have the money to spend on fire precautions and are pleading poverty and poor profits.

Get real, stop moaning and grow up. The expense of fitting a strobe in a bog isnt going to cause a worldwide recession. To someone like M&S it is a drop i the ocean.

When a national company gets fined £30,000 for health and safety fences i hear a lot people saying " thats not enough, thats peanuts for a company that size"

I shouldnt wonder that Wee Brian would be moaning if all of a sudden he was incapicitated or lost his sight or hearing (i sincerely hope he doesn't) and realised the environment around him wasnt as easy to negotiate

Of course be reasonable, not OTT, but don't just start using the ELf and Safety gone mad excuse for common sense cost effective solutions for god sake.

I think some of you need to understand more about the needs of less abled persons.

Just because something has been done a certain way for years doesnt make it right. Anyone remember slavery?

[kurnal]

Absolutely agree but....

"The DRC has been increasingly concerned about the growing number of unscrupulous organisations setting out to exploit the marketing opportunities of the Disability Discrimination Act (the DDA) and other equalities legislation to the detriment of the public.  This takes various forms.

One is “gold-plating” – in other words, advising businesses that they must, under the DDA, provide specific adjustments (or risk being taken to court) without any regard to the circumstances.  This often puts businesses – particularly smaller ones – under pressure to make expensive adjustments when, with a little imagination and forethought, a less expensive option would be just as good.

We must be vigilant in protecting the public from rogue operators who  mislead the very people they profess to be helping, including both business and disabled people."

(extract from E&HRC website)

The DDA does not require anything that is not both reasonable and proportionate. One of our friends on this forum
has told us of the diffiulty in bringing cases and it is good to see all points of view expressed.

[Wiz]

Unfortunately fellas, cost and inconvenience is not a defence when considering 'reasonable adjustment'. This has been proven in court on numerous occasions......

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-03-05c.123845.h