**Denied use of DISABLED toilet in jobcentre

Indie_Kid

Seven-day-weekend - I have the same problems as your husband does, and class it as a disability and the only reason I'd use a disabled toilet would be if my bowels were that bad. (I've had someone tell me it's not a disability - although she does hold the opinion that "my daughter is the most disabled person in the wolrd and there's nothing wrong with anyone else")

seven-day-weekend

My husband would not want to use a disabled toilet - just an ordinary one of which there are none in the Jobcentre.

If he needed to go to the toilet they would not let him use the disabled one. So there is no toilet he would be able to use.

Savvy_Sue

kunekune wrote: »

I still think it's wrong and horrific. I also have very strong doubts about the truth of these stories. They stink of the "and she had sixteen children by fourteen fathers and got £2000 a week in benefit" stories the tabloids love to run. Don't get me wrong: I have two disabled family members, and believe in the importance of toilets that are accessible. But it would be awful if people just uncritically believed urban myths about how "other" unemployed people were scum, using the toilets to take drugs. There may be the occasional abuse, but there are much better ways of dealing with this than treating everyone like a primary school kid. Those who are in need shouldn't turn round and attack others who are in similar need. We're not talking people being there for 5 minutes. And the job centres aren't in places where there are plenty of public toilets around.

And now, I'll go and wrap myself in some flame-proof plastic, as I suspect a pro-beneficiary approach goes down pretty badly around much of MSE, even if this board is usually a haven of compassion. I won't dive in again.

It may be a policy which has spread across from all benefits-related offices (although I believe there are fewer and fewer places where you can go and queue up and see a real person to discuss these).

It may or may not be a proportionate response to possible abuse, but using a sledgehammer to crack a nut isn't unusual in government, IMO.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

A good example here: My husband suffers from Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Sometimes it is worse than others.

Today it is really bad and he can't go out unless he can be near a toilet. Now, what if he had to go to the Jobcentre? He is not 'disabled' (although today he is), so would not be allowed to use the toilet.

His only option would be to ring up and say he couldn't go. Then what would happen to any benefits he may be entitled to? And would they accept 'I can't come as I won't be allowed to use the toilet' as a valid reason?

Stupid decision, removing the toilets for the sake of the behaviour of a very small minority.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My husband would not want to use a disabled toilet - just an ordinary one of which there are none in the Jobcentre.

If he needed to go to the toilet they would not let him use the disabled one. So there is no toilet he would be able to use.

Can he not get a card to show in shops, offices etc saying that he may need to use a toilet urgently? I thought these were available. And that, surely, would allow him to use the disabled loo. A loo's a loo at the end of the day, if you're in dire need!

BTW, a number of cafes I frequent have locked their toilets, so you have to ask for the key. It's partly to avoid non-paying customers using the loo, and partly to enable them to vet who is going in and out. These are in areas where there are a fair few drug users and street drinkers around, and there WOULD be abuse if they didn't have a key.

Although one of these cafes still has their "toilet locked, key from staff" notice up, even though they no longer lock them. I think that having got the message across that they were doing this, people stopped taking advantage!

seven-day-weekend

Thanks Savvy Sue, that is a good idea about the card, although actually it's not normally that much of a problem, only when his IBS is having a 'flare-up' as it is at the momnt.

Usually he can manage with what facilities are provided, in larger stores like B&Q or BHS, or when we are in Spain, in every bar (they don't mind you going in just to use the loo as public ones are few and far between, although here they also exist in large stores and Government offices).

I just used his example of an illustation about how bad it was not to provide public toilets in a public building, especially one that some people are obliged to visit.

ShaShaSha

I noticed a few people saying he probably wasnt allowed use of the toilet because of people taking drugs in them etc and it being a problem....but the toilet is locked -so only staff can let people in....thus meaning they can control who gets access. Not many people on illegal drugs will have the frame of mind to look up a DDA rule that would allow them to abuse this toilet...by claiming they are disabled.

A lot of people are making this exact point, if they only provide one toilet (which happens to have disabled facilities) then surely it should be of use to anyone who cannot wait till they get home? Pregnant? poorly? a child? someone with bladder/bowel problems?