Disability Discrimination Act and hotel / Hostel acommodation

[val]

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.

[Donna]

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,

[saddlers]

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.

[Wiz]

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.

[Donna]

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!

[jokar]

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.

[val]

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.

[Donna]

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

[kurnal]

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!

[graz]

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.

[jokar]

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]

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!

[Wiz]

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.

[jokar]

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.

[Davo]

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