|
A recent case shows that the disability discrimination laws may not be
as draconian (or as powerful) as many had suspected. The case involved
a long lessee, aged 81, who could not cope with the stairs up to her
third-floor flat.
She wanted permission from L to install a stairlift (at her
cost). L refused, and she brought proceedings under the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995. L was regarded as a ‘manager’ of the
premises, but there was no discrimination. It was clear that the other Ts
were not being treated differently than the claimant – no other person
would have been allowed to install a stairlift (and it made no difference
that T was offering to pay for the work). Thus, there was no
discrimination. Note that as a ‘manager’ L was not under the positive
obligation to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ that apply to ‘service
providers’ under DDA 1995.
As we noted previously, new provisions were added to
DDA 1995 by DDA 2005. Since December 2006, a ‘premises provider’
(which will include L) has to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to facilitate
a disabled person’s use of any benefit or facility. That would for example include a staircase used to access the disabled person’s flat. At first
sight, therefore, it would seem to have applied to the request for a
stairlift in this case. But, s24E DDA 1995 says that it is never
‘reasonable’ for a premises provider to have to take steps that include
the removal or alteration of a physical feature. That would clearly apply
to the stairlift in this case, and thus the end result would be that the
aged T would not have been able to get the stairlift installed even under
the new premises provider provisions. Richmond Court v Dorothy
Williams [2006] EWCA Civ 1719.
|
|
March 2007 |
