Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Gerry Colverson
This question links to the question raised by Gerry Mcaleney, but raises a separate question in law. There are two areas of law that impact on this problem, Health and Safety law, including the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regs 1997 and the Disabilities Discrimination Act.(DDA)
We have obligations under the DDA to make our buildings accessible to people with disabilities. We must include in this getting them out safely in an evacuation. If individuals are larger and heavier than average and there is no suitable equipment to acheive a safe evacuation, then safety considerations would say this person should not be permitted to use the building. This then runs the risk of action under the DDA.
Does anyone have knowledge of which legislation would take preference and is there any case law on this?
Gerry Colverson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By A Olsen
Can't really answer your question but when working in public sector the same question arose.
Wheelchair users in an old building which could not reasonably be altered. Could not insist that wheelchair users remain on the ground floor (due to DDA) which at the time for the Fire Service strikes, seemed the safest option.
Also, as the building was open to the public and there was no signing in requirement for general public, staff etc., DDA also prevented the insistance that wheelchair users sign in to let us know if/when they were present.
Evac chairs were available but as some wheelchair users can have unstable back conditions, we could have caused further injury to them if moving them was not ABSOLUTELY essential. Gave problems differentiating between, drills, false alarms and actual fire.
The best solution at the time was to work with the known wheelchair user to devise personal evacuation plans for each. Most were helpful and sometimes volunteered to at least let us know when they were entering/leaving the building but some were not.
It's not an issue for me now but if anyone has the solution, I'd like to know out of curiosity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Webster
Unfortunately, we will have to wait for case law to be established before getting any guidance on what alteralions to old buildings may or may not be reasonable.
Meanwhile, however, it is not necessarily discriminatory to confine wheelchair users to the ground floor. For access to public services and facilities, if there are no publicly accessed "services or facilities" on other floors, no problem. For example, we had one meeting room on an upper floor. We now hold all meetings to which the public have access in other, more accessible, premises.
With employees, it is only necessary to make adjustments as required. It does, however require each department to have a clear idea of how they might achieve adjustments should a disabled person be employed. This might, for example, involve relocating the whole department to the ground floor for a wheelchair user.
However, just as in the past we have had to condemn buildings as unfit for purpose and move out - because they could no longer be made to meet the standards of the day - so too will some buildings now have to be vacated. That's progress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.