Job Centre no access for disabled and pushchairs??

Fire_Fox

Why can't the father stay downstairs with the child and the buggy? Or the father stay downstairs with the buggy and the mother go upstairs with the child? Or the mother fold the buggy and ask a member of staff to help her take it upstairs? Or the mother take the child in a baby carrier on her front or back instead of in a £400 buggy?

OnTheUp_2-2

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Why can't the father stay downstairs with the child and the buggy? Or the father stay downstairs with the buggy and the mother go upstairs with the child? Or the mother fold the buggy and ask a member of staff to help her take it upstairs? Or the mother take the child in a baby carrier on her front or back instead of in a £400 buggy?

The father is not always available, so strike that.

She was not aware of the strairs so did not bring padlock/baby carry which she doesnt own and wouldnt buy just to get up one flight of stairs/its the principal

I am highlighting the principle of the place not being accessabile. What if it was abusy day, where are you going to chain up 30 buggies for crying out loud!!

OnTheUp_2-2

daska wrote: »

And that's the nub of the matter isn't it. This was an appointment that she was expecting to attend and that she could have rearranged to a more suitable time.

On top of that she had another person with her who could have helped by taking the child elsewhere in order to allow her to concentrate on what needed to be dealt with at the appointment. AFAIK you don't need to take the baby to prove it exists, a birth certificate, if needed, is normally considered more appropriate.

TBH, if he's that self-centred that he won't take his own child for a quick walk because 'it's not his day', then she's probably well rid of him.

She did not know there were stairs. had there have been no stairs she would not have needed to re arrange. Obviously she will now make other arrangemnts.. but as I have repeatedly said I am just questioning the principle of the fact the building should be accessible. The baby was looked after on this occassion.

Fire_Fox

OnTheUp wrote: »

The father is not always available, so strike that.

She was not aware of the strairs so did not bring padlock/baby carry which she doesnt own and wouldnt buy just to get up one flight of stairs/its the principal

I am highlighting the principle of the place not being accessabile. What if it was abusy day, where are you going to chain up 30 buggies for crying out loud!!

If she wasn't aware of the stairs AND he works full time AND he didn't want to take the baby what was the father doing there?? The place is accessible, your sister upset because it was a fuss to do it her way. If she was alone she could have folded the buggy and asked nicely if they would mind it behind the counter or help her take it upstairs.

DX2

Fire_Fox wrote: »

Why can't the father stay downstairs with the child and the buggy? Or the father stay downstairs with the buggy and the mother go upstairs with the child? Or the mother fold the buggy and ask a member of staff to help her take it upstairs? Or the mother take the child in a baby carrier on her front or back instead of in a £400 buggy?

Common sense doesn't get used much these days!

OnTheUp_2-2

I am aware that new legislation is hopefully being put in place for accessibilty in government and public buildings

daska

OnTheUp wrote: »

Lol I know... he ceratinly has some growing up to do.

I think alot of people are happy to jump on this thread to pass judgement and ignore the principle of the question regarding accessibilty and the right to privacy.

I do not for one minute feel that it is justified to ask who the person holding your son is, just because they are present. Sure if they have reason to believe the father may be living at the property, then follow the right channels.

Pretty sure these people have protocols and pretty sure that they are flauting human rights laws, if they can justify removing someone benefits they are entitled to just because they would not reveal the identity of the person accompanying them... then I would enjoy arguing that one in court

Sadly my sister clearly falls into the catagory of "single mum on benefits" and I guess I will ahve to get used to narrow minded bigots who tarnish everyone with the same brush.

She has worked had, paid her taxes and worked upuntil 2 weeks before giving birth to her son. She did not ask for her !!!! of a partner to walk out on them and his responsibilties, but he did.

Perhaps some you would prefer she gave her son up for adoption and move herself onto the streets where "people like her" belong.

Speaking as a disabled mum on benefits... I think you're overreacting!

First, as explained, if you're disabled they have to make provision and it may well be that they have facilities specifically for this purpose. An able-bodied person with a buggy is not the same as one who can't climb the stairs.

Second, she knew there were stairs, which is why she took her ex with her. Therefore she could have made more suitable arrangements.

Third, as explained, the appointment she was attending for would have worked around her caring commitments. If she had made the effort to get in touch they would have sorted out child care for her.

Fourth, the person doing the interview has a right to know who else is present and in what capacity. He did not need to be part of the interview.

Fifth, if someone presents contradictory information then it is the job centres job to identify what is going on to prevent the government (i.e. the tax-payer, possibly even yourself) being defrauded.

Ignoring your knowledge of the situation, if you were interviewing someone who claimed that her partner had just walked out on her, who refused to tell you the identity of the person she had attended the interview with and then you discovered that the unidentified person was the 'allegedly' ex partner... well, wouldn't you wonder exactly what was going on?

In terms of privacy, she could have asked for the interview to take place in a private room without him present and this request should have been allowed. But did she actually ask?

And I'm now very confused that you are claiming that she didn't know about the stairs. Let me refer you to your first post:

OnTheUp wrote: »

Anway yesterday she had an appointment to visit the Job Centre and she had to take her ex partner, the father of her son with her as they have to go up a flight of stairs and there is no lift.

seven-day-weekend

You know, thinking about it I agree places should be accessible for people with disabilities. I don't actually see why they need be accessible for people with buggies. (although ideally it is better if they are accessible to all, but some buildings just are not able to be adapted).

Maybe they should be accessible for people with cycles, or roller skates, or maybe someone doesn't want to leave their car outside in case it is stolen, or maybe their dog can't climb the stairs, .....

....we could go on all day, couldn't we?

There are ways for people with children to manage, how does the OP think people managed when buildings did NOT have to be accessible?

OnTheUp_2-2

Fire_Fox wrote: »

If she wasn't aware of the stairs AND he works full time AND he didn't want to take the baby what was the father doing there?? The place is accessible, your sister upset because it was a fuss to do it her way. If she was alone she could have folded the buggy and asked nicely if they would mind it behind the counter or help her take it upstairs.

Yawn, the father was there by luck, he is a contracted electrician and was local.

my sister was offended not upset at getting there and realising that she was not able to get up the stairs with her son who was asleep in his buggy. She couldnt russle up a padlock. The staff were nto prepared to take responsibilty for her buggy (I dont blame them)

She was then further offended when they decided to unrelatedly interrogate her as to who the peron standing outside was holding her son???

I do not think she was wrong to feel that way

OnTheUp_2-2

Hmm my point regarding the interogation regarding her benefit claim is not relevant then.