Disability discrimination – Service provider – Bank – Lack of wheelchair access – Whether defendant bank taking reasonable steps to remedy lack of access or provide reasonable alternative means of providing services – Claim allowed
The claimant was an 18-year-old who suffered from muscular dystrophy and used an electric wheelchair. When he was nine, he opened an account with the defendant bank. Although his local branch had wheelchair access signage, no such access was available and he was unable to use the cash machines located outside the branch since they were too high. The defendant wrote to the claimant, offering him Internet banking or the use of the facilities at the branches of a different bank. However, when the claimant visited such a branch, his card was refused because the computer systems of the two banks were incompatible. He subsequently sought to open a savings account with the defendant, but he was obliged to remain outside the bank while he discussed the account with a member of staff and completed the necessary paperwork.
The claimant contended that the defendant had discriminated against him, contrary to section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. He claimed that it had a practice, policy or procedure that made it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use its services, or a physical feature of its premises had that effect, within section 21(1) and (2) respectively, and it had not taken reasonable steps to remedy the situation.
The defendant gave evidence that its consultants suggested the installation of a platform lift for wheelchair access. However, it claimed that an appropriate solution to resolve the wheelchair access difficulty had not been found owing to concerns over disruption and the loss of a downstairs interview room, which would be necessitated by the platform lift. It also relied upon issues of structural safety and viability to justify its failure to carry out the works.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The bank had not taken “reasonable steps” within the meaning of section 21(1) or (2). With regard to section 21(2), the duty to make reasonable adjustments applied where a physical feature of the premises obstructed access for persons who had one or more types of disability, for example a disability making them dependent upon a wheelchair, rather than focusing on the individual claimant: Roads v Central Trains Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1541 applied. That test was met in the instant case since no wheelchair user could access the branch in question. The defendant had not taken reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide reasonable means of avoiding the physical feature in question, within the meaning of section 21(2)(a) to (c), because, on the evidence, it had not only failed to provide the claimant with proper access to his local branch but had failed to give proper consideration to the provision of such facilities. The defendant had not been open to the proposal of the platform lift since it opposed the loss of an interview room. Consequently, it could not argue that no appropriate solution had been found to resolve the difficulties with wheelchair access at the branch. Further, since it had not considered the proposal, it could not rely upon questions of structural safety or security.
The defendant had failed to take adequate steps to pit in place reasonable alternative methods of providing its services within the meaning of section 21(2)(d). Dealing with the claimant on the pavement was not an adequate method because it required him to discuss his private financial affairs in a public place. The Internet banking option was not feasible for paying in or drawing out money and therefore did not offer services equal to those provided within the confines of a branch. Nor was it satisfactory to require the claimant to rely upon his parents to take him to branches further afield, since this undermined his independence.
Accordingly, discrimination contrary to the Act had occurred. In assessing damages, the minimum award for injury to feelings should be in the region of £750: Purves v Joydisc Ltd [2003] IRLR 420 applied. Since the claimant had experienced discrimination over a long period, and had suffered considerable embarrassment as a result, a much higher award than the minimum was appropriate. The case fell into the middle bracket, where an award of £5,000-15,000 was justified: Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2002] EWCA Civ 1871 applied. The appropriate award in the instant case was £6,500. It was also appropriate to grant an injunction to preclude further discrimination on the ground that damages were not a sufficient remedy.
Catherine Casserley (instructed by the Sheffield Law Centre) appeared for the claimant; Dr Stephen Hardy (instructed by Cobbetts, of Manchester) appeared for the defendant.
Sally Dobson, barrister
