The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) provides that where the design or construction of a building or the approach or access to premises produces a physical feature that makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service, the service provider has a duty to take reasonable steps to remove or alter that feature. Alternatively, the service provider may provide a reasonable means of avoiding the feature in question, or find a reasonable alternative method of providing services to disabled persons.
The supporting code of practice states that the policy that underpins the DDA is not a minimalist one. The intention is not merely to ensure that some access is available to disabled people; it is, so far as is reasonably practicable, to approximate the standard of access enjoyed by the public at large.
The decision in Allen v Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc [2009] PLSCS 59 shows that the DDA has teeth. It is believed to be the first in which a court has granted an injunction requiring a service provider to alter premises – in this case, by installing a lift at an estimated cost of around £200,000.
The case concerned a wheelchair user who was unable to gain entry to his bank, despite the display of wheelchair accessibility signs. The bank suggested that the claimant should use telephone or Internet banking or, alternatively, should visit another branch, which was accessible to wheelchair users but which was situated 10 miles away. On another occasion, the bank sent a clerk to meet the customer on the street to discuss a new account with him.
The county court had no doubt that the bank had breached its duties under the DDA. The judge ruled that telephone and Internet banking did not offer an equivalent service because customers cannot use these services to deposit or withdraw money and the alternative branch was too distant to use without reliance upon others (which would deprive the customer of his independence). The bank should have provided a facility for confidential discussion. It had not offered to meet the customer at home and had not made any serious attempts to consider improvements to the branch. It had decided not to install a lift because it was concerned about potential disruption and about the loss of an interview room from a busy banking hall. Consequently, it had unlawfully discriminated against its customer.
The DDA does not define the steps that it is reasonable for a service provider to take to satisfy the statutory requirements and service providers cannot be expected to anticipate the needs of every individual who may use their services. However, this case shows that they must consider, and make reasonable provision for, the needs of their disabled customers. What is reasonable is likely to vary according to the individual circumstances of each case, the nature of the service and service provider and its size and resources.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
