Posted By Phil Rose DPK I have the feeling that there may be some case law or guidance but not sure where! I would guess that HSW takes precedence over DDA which requires 'reasonable adjustments to be made'. Some of the HSW duties are 'absolute'. Your idea is not unreasonable. Another solution might be to have self closers on the doors but help open on 'mag locks' or 'Dorguard' type devices. Hope that helps Phil

Posted By stephen d clarke Hi, The following is also useful cf. DDA v HSWA and has some case law: http://www.ioshsoutheast...entation%20-Nov%2005.pdf Steve

Posted By Bob Youel Where was the CDMC? DDA does not take presidence over the RR[FS]O etc

Posted By DPK Bob Good question, but then i am still asking that on projects today. In fact i have questioned the CDMC twice in the past week due to poor safety management and design. DPK

Posted By Phil Rose Frank What an odd way to look at it! Criminal and civil law have two different purposes; I don't think one was intended to or does as such take precedence over the other! Actions or inaction's by people can lead to both criminal and civil proceedings, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive! Lets be clear, the DDA is a criminal statute for which people can and HAVE been prosecuted and fined. Failure to comply with certain sections of the DDA IS a CRIMINAL offence. Phil

Posted By PaulB Morning all, I have this quote from the following link www.sitelines.co.uk/pdfs/21563.pdf 'Although the state (in the form of Parliament) has imposed the duties, they constitute civil duties and their enforcement has been left to individuals. The duties laid down in the DDA are almost exclusively enforceable by one citizen against another. Whether or not a case is brought at all is the decision of the disabled person who claims that a duty owed to him has been breached. Losing a case under the DDA will not result in a criminal record'. Hope this helps Paul

Posted By Phil Rose Frank 2 things, firstly i was making the point that criminal and civil proceedings have 2 different purposes and one does not take precedence over the other. Am trying to get away fro a few days, but these links may help illustrate that prosecutions are 'available' under the DDA http://www.pws-ltd.com/p...sion_article/scanned.pdf http://www.healthandsafe...irst_DDA_Prosecution.htm http://209.85.229.132/se...hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk http://www.workplacelaw.net/news/display/id/7506 Phil

Posted By FAH Moderators - even though it has now technically become a conversation between 2 respondents, please continue to allow this continued discussion as it is very relevant to the understanding of the relationship between the DDA, HSWA & FSO. Phil I trust that you really do manage to get your short break - unfortunately, I need a little more specific additional info from you in order for me to really get my head around this. I've visited 3 of the references that you provided & identified that:- Given the info available in the article, the item touted in the link provided as "the 1st prosecution etc" is actually not a prosecution at all - it was a civil case brought by an individual! The other 2 references visited provided essentially the same result [inc the iosh one]. So, could you, or anyone, please provide me with the specific legislative reference which Act or Regulation] that absolutely identifies that there is provision for a direct prosecution under the DDA. Frank Hallett

Posted By FAH Thank you Jane Frank Hallett

Posted By FAH Thank you Steve C I've again re-visited both the original '95 Act & the 05' Act that amended the '95 Act. I agree that S57 does allow for summary conviction under defined circumstances & therefore in a narrow technical sense there is an explicit criminal law application under the DDA - so "Yes", in that context Phil is correct! However, the links provided as reference to his assertion did not address S57 nor its application as far as I could tell. The potential for such a prosecution only appears to arise from indirect or subsidiary actions that relate to aiding or assisting a discrimination under the DDA and not to the actual discriminatory act itself. [who wrote this stuff this way anyway?] It's been a bit of a marathon, but if there are any other issues that are relevant on this I'll be happy to be informed. I've found that the desire & need to know more got the better of me on this; but it does no harm to expand ones' understanding; & I've certainly done that [very publicly]. Good learning experience & it's going in my CPD. Now, back to the original question. I consider that the original observation re door closers as quoted is flawed and actually irrelevant as there is no meaningful conflict between the FSO & DDA in this case. The FSO does not explicitly require doors to be self-closing - it's simply considered the most effective means of ensuring that the doors are actually closed when required. The solution identified by DPK appears to be an acceptable compromise provided it can be reliably implemented at all material times. Frank Hallett

Posted By FAH DPK I'm very pleased that we've helped you to make what you consider to be the most appropriate decision on your problem. As I've identified previously, I've learnt more as well - so it's a "win all round". Frank Hallett