Hospital Complaint For Breach Of Equality Act 2010

Guys_Dad

I would like to offer an alternative view to this. Before I get flamed, this is based only on logic.

The hospital has "x" disabled parking spaces. This should be reviewed if insufficient.

Now, and I quote from c-m

"That's it, in a nutshell - it is all about 'reasonable adjustments' and this is not 'reasonable', it's half-baked. They cannot make reasonable adjustments for one section of disabled people but not others. "

Reasonable adjustments apply to matters relating to the disability and payment or not is not related to a "reasonable adjustment" unless it is being claimed that disabled people can't afford parking charges.

In other words, there is absolutely no connection to reasonable adjustments and paying for parking.

So what the hospital is doing is providing a number of disabled parking spaces and further making a concession of making those free. But the real issue is providing sufficient spaces for disabled drivers/passengers.

It is this that is the reasonable adjustment issue,

esmerobbo

If the disabled spaces are full what adjustment should be made if you have to park in a normal parking space?

Is the argument if it is free to park in a disabled bay then it should be free to park in a paid for bay, if your disabled and there are no disabled bays?

Fergie76

esmerobbo wrote: »

If the disabled spaces are full what adjustment should be made if you have to park in a normal parking space?

Is the argument if it is free to park in a disabled bay then it should be free to park in a paid for bay, if your disabled and there are no disabled bays?

That was my argument in my letter.

However, the hospital don't have to give free parking to make reasonable adjustments, but to treat one disabled person differently to another is imo discriminatory.

The hospital could just easily say everyone needs to pay, however regardless of where they are parked, disabled people get an extra hour.

Guys_Dad

Fergie76 wrote: »

That was my argument in my letter.

However, the hospital don't have to give free parking to make reasonable adjustments, but to treat one disabled person differently to another is imo discriminatory.

The hospital could just easily say everyone needs to pay, however regardless of where they are parked, disabled people get an extra hour.

It is not discriminatory as far as the financial situation goes any more that it is for able bodied people who can't park because the car park is full and they need to park elsewhere at additional cost.

And when I travel on the train and there are no seats left and I have to stand,,,,,,,,,???

And if I go to the theatre and no cheap seats left and I have to pay more for a circle seat......................?

None of these are discriminatory, just the law of supply and demand.

Fergie76

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I would like to offer an alternative view to this. Before I get flamed, this is based only on logic.

The hospital has "x" disabled parking spaces. This should be reviewed if insufficient.

Now, and I quote from c-m

"That's it, in a nutshell - it is all about 'reasonable adjustments' and this is not 'reasonable', it's half-baked. They cannot make reasonable adjustments for one section of disabled people but not others. "

Reasonable adjustments apply to matters relating to the disability and payment or not is not related to a "reasonable adjustment" unless it is being claimed that disabled people can't afford parking charges.

In other words, there is absolutely no connection to reasonable adjustments and paying for parking.

So what the hospital is doing is providing a number of disabled parking spaces and further making a concession of making those free. But the real issue is providing sufficient spaces for disabled drivers/passengers.

It is this that is the reasonable adjustment issue,

I got a ticket at this hospital last year for the same "offence", did an FOI then reference the ratio of disable space to normal and they were within Government guidelines.

This is a big hospital, with 4 or 5 car parks. I parked in a car park that was closest and easiest for my wife to get to where she had to go. So while there may have been disabled spaces at other parts of the hospital, they were not convenient for my wife's condition. Despite what the hospitals reply states, that no car park only has one disabled bay, they car park I parked in, I could only see one disabled bay. I (my wife) have been visiting this hospital for a number of months now, plus last year and have yet to see more disabled bays.

As, I said in my reply to esmerobbo, disable parking doesn't need to be free, but why should they allow free parking for one disabled person, but not another?

A disabled person, will more often than not take longer than an able bodied person, so why should they be financial disadvantaged having to pay for longer parking? Reasonable adjustment takes all this into account.

Fergie76

Guys_Dad wrote: »

It is not discriminatory as far as the financial situation goes any more that it is for able bodied people who can't park because the car park is full and they need to park elsewhere at additional cost.

And when I travel on the train and there are no seats left and I have to stand,,,,,,,,,???

And if I go to the theatre and no cheap seats left and I have to pay more for a circle seat......................?

None of these are discriminatory, just the law of supply and demand.

Sorry, but totally disagree.

You have a half hour appointment, you arrive 15 minutes early to ensure you are on time and have 15 minutes at the end to get back to your car. One hour parking is £5.

Disabled person has the same appointment, there are no 'free spaces' and they park next to you, it takes them half an hour to get out the car and to get to the same place you have to go and the same to return after the appointment. So they need to buy a 2 hour ticket costing £10.

Why should they be financially disadvantaged compared to you, because of their disability?

Guys_Dad

Fergie76 wrote: »

As, I said in my reply to esmerobbo, disable parking doesn't need to be free, but why should they allow free parking for one disabled person, but not another?

1. See last sentence of my previous post.

Redx

Jeremy Hunt clearly stated that the guidance rules are that a BB holder should receive free parking and not be hounded by debt collectors, hence what coupon mad said about reminding them about this, plus no punitive charges by their car park operators either

plus the EA 2010 says they should make reasonable adjustments for any person who qualifies under the act, doesnt matter where they park as that isnt in the EA 2010 , nor is it defined if its for 5 or 50 either , its for each and every one who should be treated in the same manner, with a reasonable adjustment, so it should have a clause that says use a normal bay if all the pictogram bays are full

Guys_Dad

Redx wrote: »

Jeremy Hunt clearly stated that the guidance rules are that a BB holder should receive free parking and not be hounded by debt collectors, hence what coupon mad said about reminding them about this, plus no punitive charges by their car park operators either

plus the EA 2010 says they should make reasonable adjustments for any person who qualifies under the act, doesnt matter where they park as that isnt in the EA 2010 , nor is it defined if its for 5 or 50 either , its for each and every one who should be treated in the same manner, with a reasonable adjustment, so it should have a clause that says use a normal bay if all the pictogram bays are full

Here are the guidelines should you wish to use them, but they are only guidelines, not law. And riddled with the "F" word.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles

Fergie76

Guys_Dad wrote: »

1. See last sentence of my previous post.

See post 27.