This document summarizes key cases related to the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 and provisions for reasonable adjustments for disabled individuals. It discusses duties for premises managers and landlords to make adjustments to services and facilities. It also outlines requirements for service providers to consider adjustments that prevent substantial disadvantages for disabled customers, as established in cases such as Roads v. Central Trains Limited and Ross v. Ryanair/Stansted Airport. The document concludes with implications for retailers to proactively address accessibility beyond minimal compliance with the Equality Act.

1. TLT LLP
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
20 years on
Mark Routley
Partner

2. TLT LLP
Ambit of the legislation
• DDA 1995
• Equality Act 2010
• 2 key concepts:
• Outlawing of less favourable
treatment
• Duty to make reasonable
adjustments.
• Latter imposes positive duty to take
steps to remove barriers to accessing
services/facilities

3. TLT LLP
Premises subject to tenancies and leases
• Duty
• on the person who manages the premises (the controller)
• to make reasonable adjustments:
to the way things are done; or
to provide an auxiliary aid (e.g. hearing
loop)
• Duty arises on a request from a disabled tenant or where it is for the
benefit of a disabled occupier (e.g. an employee).
• But no right to request the landlord makes reasonable adjustments
to physical features.
• Duty owed to prospective tenants too. Again no right to request
reasonable adjustments but it may be necessary to give the
prospective tenant greater freedom to make physical alterations
(e.g. to install a lift).

4. TLT LLP
Common Parts
• No duty on landlord to make
reasonable adjustments.
• Richmond Court (Swansea) Limited v
Williams [2006]
• EA 2010 changed this for residential
buildings. Some ability for a disabled
tenant or occupier to require
alterations to the building.
• However, this part of the EA 2010 is
not yet in force.

5. TLT LLP
Duties on service providers to the public
• Duty to make reasonable adjustments to assist disabled
people by
• changing how things are done
• altering a physical feature
• providing an auxiliary aid
• Is the disabled person put at a "substantial
disadvantage"?
• Lower threshold than under the DDA "impossible or
unreasonably difficult"
• Different to duty to tenants as not triggered by request.

6. TLT LLP
Roads v Central Trains Limited [2004]
• Mr Roads lived in Norwich
• Unable to access the eastbound
platform for his return journey from
Thetford Railway Station
• Alternative was a difficult route
along the road underneath the railway
line
• Solution offered by Central Trains
was to travel to Ely in the opposite
direction, and then cross over to the
Norwich line to get on the train
• Added an hour to the 36 min
journey
• Mr Roads suggested that a taxi was
a reasonable alternative even though
this meant the taxi had to come from
Norwich

7. TLT LLP
Roads v Central Trains Limited [2004]
•Court of Appeal agreed with Mr
Roads
• Central Trains solution was
unreasonable
• Navigating the road was
theoretically possible but not
reasonable
•Travel time going to Ely was too
great
•Taxi was a reasonable alternative

8. TLT LLP
Ross v Ryanair/Stansted Airport [2004]
• Mr Ross was a regular passenger
on Ryanair's flight to Perpignan
• He had limited mobility
• Needed to use a wheelchair to
reach the aeroplane
• Prior to 1995 Ryanair provided a
wheelchair and pusher free of charge
• Change of policy in 1995 to limit this
to wheelchair passengers only
•Those with restricted mobility had to
pay £18 to the onsite provider

9. TLT LLP
Ross v Ryanair/Stansted Airport [2004]
• Mr Ross won at trial
• Ryanair was operating in a
discriminatory manner
• Court of Appeal concluded
Stansted Airport was equally
liable
• Distance from the check-in
desk to the aeroplane was a
physical feature
• Provision of a wheelchair and
pusher was a reasonable
auxiliary aid

10. TLT LLP
Royal Bank of Scotland v Allen [2009]
• Mr Allen opened an account
main branch in Sheffield
• Entrances inaccessible to
wheelchairs
• So too were the ATMs
• Various solutions were
suggested:
• Online/telephone banking
• Use of ATMs elsewhere
• Use of NatWest branches
• Home visits

11. TLT LLP
Royal Bank of Scotland v Allen [2009]
• RBS argued that Mr Allen could access the
services (even if the building was inaccessible)
• Mr Allen argued these were not reasonable
adjustments
• Steps were the barrier
• Solution 1
• install a platform lift
• Rejected by RBS as turning circle too
small and too disruptive to services to
building
• Solution 2
• Install a lift in the banking hall
• Rejected by RBS as resulted in loss of
an interview room

12. TLT LLP
Royal Bank of Scotland v Allen [2009]
• Trial judge and Court of Appeal agreed with Mr Allen:
• No distinction between accessing premises and
services
• Provision of banking service in RBS's main branch
• Some people liked using online/telephone banking
• Many prefer traditional way
• Only way to achieve this was provision of a lift

13. TLT LLP
First Group Plc v Paulley [2014]
• Space in bus set aside for
wheelchair users
• Space taken by mother and
sleeping child in pushchair
• She refused to move
• Unsafe for Mr Paulley to travel
in ordinary seat
• First Bus's policy was to ask
the passenger to move but
could not compel
• Result was Mr Paulley could
not get on and his journey was
significantly delayed

14. TLT LLP
First Group Plc v Paulley [2014]
• At trial Mr Paulley won
• Judge decided that disabled passengers enjoying
special protection while mothers with buggies were not
• Court of Appeal reversed the decision
• The trial judge had misunderstood the protection
• Duty to carry out reasonable adjustments did not
trump other considerations
• Many practical issues to consider
• Bus drivers lacked means to enforce the law
• Plenty of tricky potential scenarios

15. TLT LLP
First Group Plc v Paulley [2014]

16. TLT LLP
Conclusions for retailers
• The EA imposes a positive duty to take
action ahead of a complaint
• Focus in the cases is on wheelchair users
but law equally applies to other disabilities
• "Reasonable" does not mean the bare
minimum
• "The standard normally offered to the public
at large"
• Online/off site services may well not be an
acceptable alternative to access