PP 2009/113

In Allen v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2009] EWCA Civ 1213; [2009] PLSCS 323, the Court of Appeal refused to overturn an injunction requiring the bank to alter a listed building to enable a disabled customer to obtain access to its counter service. The case concerned a wheelchair user who was unable either to gain entry to his bank in Sheffield or to use the cash machines outside the bank because they were too high. The customer claimed that the bank had breached its duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The legislation provides that where a physical feature arising from, for example, the design or construction of a building or the approach or access to premises, makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to use a service, the service provider must take reasonable steps to remove or alter that feature. Alternatively, it can provide a reasonable means of avoiding the feature or find another, reasonable, method of making its services available to disabled persons. The bank claimed that it had taken reasonable steps to provide alternatives to its services. It argued that the county court judge had confused access to services with access to premises, and that the provision of banking services does not equate with that of a building from which services are provided. The bank suggested a number of alternatives including: telephone or internet banking, cash withdrawals from other banks and in some shops accessible to wheelchair users, or using another branch that wheelchair users could access, although this was 10 miles away. In addition, the bank could arrange home visits, although none was suggested in this case; on one occasion, a bank clerk met the customer on the street to discuss a new account. The Court of Appeal ruled that face-to-face banking facilities were an important part of the service provided by the bank. Consequently, the judge had been entitled to reject the alternatives suggested by the bank, unless there was no reasonable way of providing physical access to the branch. The judge found that reasonable steps could have been taken to provide access for the disabled.  It  had failed to take do so because it was reluctant to lose a ground-floor interview room; the judge was entitled to find that this was unjustified. Interestingly, the bank argued that the judge had overlooked the substantial efforts that it had made to provide disabled access at a high percentage of its retail branches across the UK. None the less, the court ruled that, no matter how well the bank may have performed generally in this area, it had not discharged its statutory duty at its main branch in Sheffield. Consequently, the court upheld the order that the bank must install a platform lift to provide access to the building at an estimated cost of around £200,000. The customer also received £6,500 in damages for injury to his feelings. Allyson Colby  is a property law consultant