Changes in strategy due to disabled occupants

[Big T]

All,

Outline of building prior to question:

I have a building which is 5 storeys in height. And is utilised for student accomodation in a university city.

The building houses approximately 30 students on the 2nd, 3rd and fourth floor.

Access to the building is by an entrance on the Ground floor which has a small desk utilised for a security guard, access to the single staircase within the building and a door to the lift which is not utilised for evacuation.

The first floor houses a smoall office and a laundry and as previously stated accomodation is provided on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor. The accomodation is divided in to 6 wings, 2 per floor. and each wing contains 5 self contained single occuapncy ensuite bedrooms and one kitchen utilised by all 5 flats.

Each flat/room has a self closing FD30S door,as does the kitchen. At the end of each wing is an FD30S self closing door which leads to a lobby and a full height AOV at the opposite end of the corridoor.

Building operates an evac policy and the fire alarm provides detection in all escape routes, flats and kitchens, fire extinguishers and emergency lighting are in place.

Question.

We have been asked to provide accomodation for a wheel chair bound student for the coming year.

We are unable to provide accomodation at ground level or first floor level so their room would be on the second floor.

Staff are provided on site from 9-4 on a monday through Friday and night security is provided from 6pm - 6 am 7 days per week.

Can we accomodate this request? Evac chair possible but staffing would have to increase.
Stay put policy for this one resident? Lift is not an evac lift so would require upgrade.

Can we refuse? I personally do not think the building is suitable.

I need robust answers that are in line with DDA

[CivvyFSO]

You can't have a stay put just for the wheelchair user, that would be classed as singling her/him out. (And would also be quite unfair)

Surely it has to be down to 'reasonable adjustments'. If you are going to make £50 a week rent, but have to pay another £250 a week in wages to someone a week to cover the night shift then that would surely be unreasonable?

I do not know the DDA-compliant answer and would be interested to know the answer myself.

[devon4ever]

You could submit a DDA Impact Statement, as a response, outlining insufficient managerial procedures, (security staff only 9-4), and the inadquate accommodation on ground and first floor. Remedial work, (refuges, evac lifts etc) are unreasonable costings.  I have experience of project managers that have succesfully applied the aforementioned in refurbs of existing premises, its rarely applied in new builds because Building Regs - Approved Doc M, (Access), requirements are incorporated into the design.

Food for thought though......assuming the accommodation is for able bodied students, what existing managerial procedures are there in place for a resident student who breaks his leg playing sport etc; and is living on the 2nd 3rd 4th floors.........

[CivvyFSO]

Students are too lazy to break their legs doing anything. I suppose one could fall off the bed though.

[afterburner]

I think Civvy FSO has the crux of the matter.
The DDA is very aspirational in creating access, but as we all know access does not equal egress. Using the evac chair solution also presumes the wheelchair user can be evacuated by being transported downstairs. A word of caution, if, when you are creating the PEEP for the person, they say they are not prepared to transfer to such a chair and come down the stairs, your evacuation stratgy has just disappeared. So the test of 'Reasonable adjustments' applies, whilst the need to provide a workable evacuation strategy 24 / 7 applies as an absolute duty. (The DDA itself refers all matters regarding fire safety for persons with disabilities back to the FRA under applicable fire safety legislation).
As for the broken legs etc, there is a difference between persons who cannot use the staircase (severe disablities) and persons who can use the staircases albeit slowly.

[Big T]

Would DDA even apply? Its not a public building or an office?

[afterburner]

I think it does apply. Act covers the delivery of goods and services. Whilst accepting that public buildings have to comply more than others the supply of services also comes into the equation. Being student flats would indicate that it a service on behalf an University. This is a public service and therefore all sub-contractors contributing to delivery of of the Universities services would provide DDA compliance too.
I think

[nearlythere]

I think it does apply. Act covers the delivery of goods and services. Whilst accepting that public buildings have to comply more than others the supply of services also comes into the equation. Being student flats would indicate that it a service on behalf an University. This is a public service and therefore all sub-contractors contributing to delivery of of the Universities services would provide DDA compliance too.
I think

I would guess that the politics of not doing so would cause a nuclear reaction. It would not bode well with the NUS if someone was excluded or prevented from making reasonable use of a university and its facilities on the grounds of disability, and rightly so. You have to make reasonable adjustments not wish lists.

[Big T]

It is owned by a social housing provider and is not an NUS service.

My thoughts are an evac chair (if the person can be moved out of their own chair) with trained staff onsite 24/7

Or lift upgrade with trained staff on site 24/7

Peep completed and appended to FRA and systems tested and robustly managed.

[nearlythere]

It is owned by a social housing provider and is not an NUS service.

My thoughts are an evac chair (if the person can be moved out of their own chair) with trained staff onsite 24/7

Or lift upgrade with trained staff on site 24/7

Peep completed and appended to FRA and systems tested and robustly managed.

I would still think that the NUS might have something to say about the matter regardless as to who provides the accommodation Big T.

[val]

There is a positive duty on public authorities (not sure if this provider falls under that), to do more than absolutely necessary to help provide services to disabled people.

If the lift is in a protected enclosure and as long as the disabled person can be alerted as early as possible, consider letting them use the lift. I bet the person in the wheelchair is happy to accept the additional (slight) risk to enjoy the same opportunities as others.

Has anyone asked if they can shuffle down the stairs on their backside. Most disabled people would much prefer being in control of their own escape.

[nearlythere]

There is a positive duty on public authorities (not sure if this provider falls under that), to do more than absolutely necessary to help provide services to disabled people.

If the lift is in a protected enclosure and as long as the disabled person can be alerted as early as possible, consider letting them use the lift. I bet the person in the wheelchair is happy to accept the additional (slight) risk to enjoy the same opportunities as others.

Has anyone asked if they can shuffle down the stairs on their backside. Most disabled people would much prefer being in control of their own escape.

....do more than absolutely neccesary

Means of escape using non escape lift??

Val?

[val]

Yep! Do more than is absolutely necessary...

Since December 2006, there has been a legal duty on all public sector organisations to promote equality of opportunity for disabled people.

And yes non-escape lifts in protected shafts, especially if they are firefighting lifts...why not?

What adjustments would you think are reasonable, Nearly there?

[jokar]

Service providers do come under the DDA, people with disabilities should not be treated any differently from the rest of us, detection is provided and therefore the lift may be useable following a risk assessment of it usability.

Question, how much would it cost to upgrade the lift?

It may be that more then one incidence of a wheelchair user in this builidng may occur.

[Big T]

It's a public sector building.

Shuffle by bottom is not suitable in this case.

I personally don't think their are any "reasonable" adjustments in this situation.

Alternative accomodation is available. In this instance I think this is the reasonable adjustment. Its not an evac lift so i wouldn't allow it to be used in an evacuation