|
The disability discrimination legislation protection was extended in 2004 so
that ‘service providers’ had to ensure that physical barriers did not prevent
disabled people from using their services. Thus, shops and offices have to
be accessible, or at least alternative procedures have to be put in place (eg
the shop may have to allocate a member of staff to do shopping for
disabled customers who cannot access certain parts of the building).
However, since December 2006, those who own or manage commercial
or residential property need to take into account an extension of the
discrimination laws, which are designed to ensure that the enjoyment of
rented premises by disabled people is not restricted by reason of their
disability. This extension of the law covers anyone who has premises to
let, or who lets premises or who manages let premises; such a person
is a ‘premises provider’ and will normally include Ls, agents,
management companies, and Ts associations. The premises will be
regarded as let irrespective of the length of the tenancy (and whether it
is a tenancy or a contractual licence).
The duty on the ‘premises provider’ may largely be described as making
‘reasonable adjustments’ to enable the disabled person to better enjoy
the premises. What is ‘reasonable’ will vary according to the individual
circumstances; the duty of the premises provider differs in two respects
from the existing duty on service providers in that (i) it does not require
the removal or alteration of physical features, and (ii) the duty only arises
on receipt of a request for aid or service. What this means is that
complaints cannot be made about the basic physical features of the
building arising from its design or construction, or its approaches and
accesses, or even fixtures. But, features that are not treated as physical
features and which therefore may require attention include taps, door
handles, doorbells and entry systems.
In practical terms, many ‘service providers’ will already feel that they are
covered under their existing duties. But, the duties on ‘premises providers’
can be subtly different. The main impact is likely to be felt by residential Ls.
For an introductory article see [2006] 181 Property Law Journal 6.
|
