**Denied use of DISABLED toilet in jobcentre

sheeps68

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I agree that these are disabilities, but fail to see why someone with these conditions could not use an ordinary toilet.

As to the OP, I think the way your husband has been treated is really bad. I would make a formal complaint about the employee concerned. Maybe a disability group could liaise with the jobcentre so that your husband does have permission to use the disabled loo.

Could your husband have used an ordinary toilet, or were there none?

The invisible disability could be need to use medication eg inject and have to wash hands etc to do so, not normally an option in a general cubicle. Or a lung / heart condition that prevents stair use as so many public facilities in my area are up or down stairs.

qwertyuiop12345

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I agree that these are disabilities, but fail to see why someone with these conditions could not use an ordinary toilet.

Just as an example, a person with epilepsy might be having a partial seizure or know they are about to have a seizure and need somewhere safe to compose themselves for a minute; Many people with epilepsy lose bladder and bowel control and may need to clean themselves up; They might think they are going to be sick.

There are many reasons people need to go into the disabled toilets, where there is a sink, toilet, armrest, tissues etc. in a safe enclosed private space. It doesn't have to be just for using the toilet in the normal sense (although I expect that is the most frequent use).

With regards to the OP, this jobcentre manager was unreasonable and clearly needs some training about disabilities. I hope you are able to continue with this matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

seven-day-weekend

_shel wrote: »

The disability is irrelevant the Act does not define which disabilities/conditions are covered by which bits of the Law. If you meet the criteria the law must be applied equally.

BUT how about if I have had a seizure, urinated and/or vomited on myself. Should I go strip in the public loos in full view of everybody else to try and clean myself up?

A person with Autism may well need someone to go in with them even as an adult, they also may act out, difficult for the carer or parent to handle in a packed loo and a tiny cubicle.

OK, yes I now see why these disabilities might give a person reasons to need a disabled toilet, sorry for being short-sighted.

I have a friend with epilepsy and my son and his girlfriend both have Asperger's Syndrome ( a type of autism) and they would not need to use disabled facilities but I should have learned by now to think outside the box.

Thankyou all for pointing these things out to me.

Unity

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

OK, yes I now see why these disabilities might give a person reasons to need a disabled toilet, sorry for being short-sighted.

I have a friend with epilepsy and my son and his girlfriend both have Asperger's Syndrome ( a type of autism) and they would not need to use disabled facilities but I should have learned by now to think outside the box.

Thankyou all for pointing these things out to me.

I just wanted to say that I applaud you for this :T:T:T:T:T. Whilst I clicked the "Thanks" button, I didn't feel it was enough. It takes strength of character to post a reply like that and I felt it needed acknowledgment.

That's all :o:o:o.

skipsmum

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

OK, yes I now see why these disabilities might give a person reasons to need a disabled toilet, sorry for being short-sighted.

I have a friend with epilepsy and my son and his girlfriend both have Asperger's Syndrome ( a type of autism) and they would not need to use disabled facilities but I should have learned by now to think outside the box.

Thankyou all for pointing these things out to me.

Was going to quote your first post to ask if you have an autistic epileptic child (I have) or a child with a bowel condition (I have). But its much nicer to be able to quote your second post and say thanks for taking the time to think it through. Disabilities are never black and white.
Thanks,
Skipsmum

Indie_Kid

Unity wrote: »

I once went to the disabled loo in Gateshead's Metrocentre only to be beaten to the door by two women with four children - two in pushchairs. They saw me coming so walked a bit faster :mad:.

As it happened the loo attendant saw what happened and hung around. When they finally came out, she asked if they were disabled, the answer was "No, but it's difficult to manage with little ones in pushchairs". I told them that the sign on the door was a wheelchair - not a pushchair and the attendant gave them a right telling off - rightly so :T.

Of course the loo itself was in no fit state to use after four toddlers had wee'd all over the place :rolleyes:.

Before my disability I managed a twin buggy and two babies and would never have dreamed of doing this. Maybe it comes down to how we are brought up .

This was mentioned on another forum I post on. Disabled toilets are now supposedly also known as "parental toilets". Many parents (non-disabled parents of non-disabled kids) were moaning "but my pushchair won't fit in the regular toilets" & "how do you expect me to change my child's nappy?" Well, my parents managed. and I'm sure many other people did too.

Unity

sh1305 wrote: »

This was mentioned on another forum I post on. Disabled toilets are now supposedly also known as "parental toilets". Many parents (non-disabled parents of non-disabled kids) were moaning "but my pushchair won't fit in the regular toilets" & "how do you expect me to change my child's nappy?" Well, my parents managed. and I'm sure many other people did too.

The Metrocentre has baby changing rooms, so there really was no need for this. These were unheard of when mine were small - but "necessity is the mother of invention" :rolleyes: and we managed. No parent/child parking spaces either - but we were careful when getting children in and out of cars and never banged our doors into the next vehicle. Admittedly people didn't drive cars the size of Rutland and pushchairs looked less like golf-carts .

To get back to the OP - things are going to have to change where Jobcentres are concerned. We have a recession, we have a government who wants to get people off IB and into work. Queues will be longer, people with health problems of all descriptions will be waiting - so regardless of problems with drug users, toilets are going to have to be supplied, disabled and non-disabled - or face the consequences. :eek::o:eek:.

dizzybuff

I understand disabilty stuff (i am disabled myself sensory) But just to throw an idea in the pot , would they allow a pregnant woman to use the disabled toilet??? Bet they would.

ShaShaSha

dizzybuff wrote: »

I understand disabilty stuff (i am disabled myself sensory) But just to throw an idea in the pot , would they allow a pregnant woman to use the disabled toilet??? Bet they would.

Interesting question, one I put towards the said manager, expecting him to have at least enough morals to allow a pregnant woman use (as I am pregnant myself, and know how baby sitting on bladder etc can make loo trips very frequent and urgent!) and his answer 'No I would not, not unless she was physically disabled'

Interesting points about epilepsy etc, there are hidden difficulties in many conditions which I dont understand alot of too, and wee need more posters like the one who took on board what was said!

There was no normal toilets available. My partner does not particuarly need a disabled toilet, and can use a normal one - but when in an episode and having visual difficulties its easier to use a disabled, although he normally manages. His problem is having toilets provided at all, disabled or not because of the frequency and urgency that he has to use them.



To recap....the manager said he would refuse use of the disabled toilet to:

• A limping man who was signing on, because 'he wouldnt be disabled if he was signing on'
• A pregnant woman
• A person with a disability that was not 'physical'
• A person with incontinence problems
• A person with a neurological disease affecting his bladder & bowel control (my partner)

He also said it wasnt his personal views, but that of the 'Policy' which he refused to show me. He also claimed he was not commiting disability discrimination, and was not judging. He also claimed that people with back problems all lean over making it obvious that they have a disability.

I was angry when I first wrote this post, but now its making me quite anxious about how me and my partner are percieved in public. And almost as if claiming we have difficulty isnt enough.

Any tips on how to get his confidence back up would be fab folks

jazabelle

ShaShaSha wrote: »

To recap....the manager said he would refuse use of the disabled toilet to:

• A limping man who was signing on, because 'he wouldnt be disabled if he was signing on'

He also claimed that people with back problems all lean over making it obvious that they have a disability.

I was angry when I first wrote this post, but now its making me quite anxious about how me and my partner are percieved in public. And almost as if claiming we have difficulty isnt enough.

Any tips on how to get his confidence back up would be fab folks

Ugh - what ignorance! Of course you can sign on and still be disabled - as long as you can work at least. I just said in my sign-on day I could work three or four days, and they noted that on my agreement, as well as jobs I couldn't do like ones involving standing/lifting etc.

Also - if disabled people couldn't sign on - why does the Access to Work scheme exist? Oh wait, it's for disabled people going back to work!

And what ignorance about back problems! I have had severe back problems for 7 years, and not stooped once! I hate people like him so much.

I'm so sorry it's knocked your husband's confidence. I don't really have any suggestions, other than knowing he was turned down due to pure ignorance - nothing to do with him and what he did.