Disability Discrimination Act and hotel / Hostel acommodation

[kurnal]

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.

[PhilB]

From building height firefighting shaft will be required with lift, could this not be used as part of EAP plan rather than evac chairs?

[kurnal]

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?

[kurnal]

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.

[nearlythere]

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.

[Wiz]

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!

[jokar]

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.

[val]

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.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

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.

[nearlythere]

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.

[Davo]

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

[Wiz]

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.

[redbadge]

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!

[Wiz]

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.

[val]

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."