Disability rights for privately owned leasehold

LCThomas123

Hi, I’ve posted on here before and had some really helpful advice. 

I am asking for a friend, who privately owns a leasehold flat. Their health has deteriorated and they are now in need of a wheelchair. They just about manage ok indoors but when out and about it is no longer possible or safe to be walking un aided. The entrance to their flat is a private door (not used by anyone else), but it’s a bit of a narrow awkward porch that enters from the side so when they had a wheelchair company come out to assess access they recommended to keep the wheelchair outside (and use a cover) as it wouldn’t be possibly to wheel directly inside around the corner. And whilst there are some chairs that can be folded they are heavy and even pushing up a ramp over the doorstep would be very difficult to do on their own. 

So we’re looking at what they could do outside, and currently there is a flower bed directly outside the window next to the entrance door. She has asked whether this could be replaced with a couple of paving slabs (at her expense), but this was refused by the management company. She has appealed the decision and we’re waiting to hear next steps. 

I was so surprised the initial request was refused as I would have thought if it is required for a disability (with letters supporting this) then it is discriminatory to refuse?! So I am reaching out in the hope someone out there has knowledge of what rights my friend has and how I can advise. Thank you in advance!

Flugelhorn

Interesting to see what comes up, I have a flat where from time to time requests for things related to mobility like stair lifts / ramps etc come up and are refused as any changes have to be agreed by all the leaseholders. I don't think disability legislation overrides this - probably only applies to more recently built properties 

Newcad

There is no legislation to force landlords/MAs/etc. to make or allow adaptations for disability, but they do have a ‘duty to make reasonable adjustments’ under the Equalities Act 2010.

If/when asked they should consider what is being asked and should not unreasonably withhold consent

Just what 'reasonable' means is open to interpretation of course.
Refusing because you are asking them to pay for any adaptations would probably be reasonable.
Refusing anything that would inconvenience others would probably be reasonable.
Refusing anything that would alter the external appearance of the property or grounds might be reasonable.

From what you have said then what your friend is asking seems reasonable to me, but of course we don't have the full details.
There may be clauses/covenants about the external appearance, or it could be a conservation area, or ....

Did they give any explanation of why they refused?
Asking for an explanation of why they consider the change to be 'unreasonable' and reminding them that they have a duty under the Equalities Act 2010, and so shouldn't refuse a reasonable request, may change their position.

Have a read of this, it talks mainly about tenants but applies to leasholders as well:
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/housing/discrimination-in-housing/taking-action/asking-for-adjustments-to-help-with-your-disability/

unforeseen

Who's lease is the flowerbed on? It may not be the freeholder.

Savvy_Sue

Is the flowerbed outside her front door, ie in a communal area? They may have a fundamental objection to anything stored in these areas, for example on h&s grounds in case they become trip hazards.

Flugelhorn

Just thinking about this again - it is not just putting slabs on a flowerbed it is the fact that the wheelchair will be kept there and it may go from being some sort of fabric cover to something more substantial .  but I have seen others do this (in freehold houses) - fabric cover is not enough and they  end up building a lean to type shed against the house as that is the level of protection needed. Perhaps the management company can see a problem if they OK some slabs outside one property and then the next thing is that everyone else wants them to put BBQ equipment  - table and chairs etc and if it does become a solid structure then people may start wanting their own little sheds etc 

Newcad

I wouldn't say that creating a new trip hazard applies, a flowebed itself is a trip hazard.

The MA may have concerns about possible future structures and/or other residents making their own alterations  - but those are not what is being requested here, and it's the request as it's been made that should be considered.

If that is the reason for refusal then I'd argue that refusing a reasonable request because of what may or may not be done (by other people) in future would be an unreasonable refusal.

The first step is to find out why they have refused permission.
Without that everyone is just guessing.

If they can't tell you why they refused then obviously they haven't given it any consideration and just refused 'on principle'.
You may find that it's simply a blanket policy not to allow alterations, and that they haven't even properly considered the request on it's own merits; such a blanket policy would be unreasonable because under EA10 they have a duty to consider such a request from someone with a disability..

Flugelhorn

Newcad said:

You may find that it's simply a blanket policy not to allow alterations, and that they haven't even properly considered the request on it's own merits; such a blanket policy would be unreasonable because under EA10 they have a duty to consider such a request from someone with a disability..

They may consider it but many places have to have all owners agreeing on any changes to the terms of the  and if they don't all agree then nothing can be  done about it - the MA probably know that this is the case.
we have similar with someone wanting an EV charging point - so long as someone says NO it will never happen

Newcad

Indeed, but if that is the case then the MA can easly/simply give that as a reasonable reason for refusal.

As I've said the first step is to ask just why they refused - because without knowing that then everything else is just guessing.

Flugelhorn

Newcad said:

Indeed, but if that is the case then the MA can easly/simply give that as a reasonable reason for refusal.

As I've said the first step is to ask just why they refused - because without knowing that then everything else is just guessing.

agree there should have been some reasons given

M25

Also, is ther person's mobility likely to worsen needing more changes?

They might consider moving to a more appropriate property.