Please Read - Not A Disability Money Question As Such, It's About Service Dogs

Spoonie_Turtle

marcia_ said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:

marcia_ said:

 Plenty of premises do refuse entry to all but guide dogs for the blind. 

 Saying they are acting illegally is all good and well but it depends on what is actually a reasonable adjustment. The company can decide its not reasonable due to the nature of their business and can only be decided by a court should the complainer taking it that far. 

Short of it being an area that needs to be kept as sterile as possible like an operating theatre, I'm curious what kinds of businesses you think that might apply to?

 The point is unless it is s guide dog the business can refuse entry for any reason and there is nothing you can do about it unless you take them to Court. 

That's incorrect, guide dogs are only one specific type of assistance dog.  The law covers all assistance dogs (those trained to specifically aid the disabled person).  - EDIT: which is what I assumed this thread was about, referring to 'assistance' dogs and 'service' in the title^, and talking about training them.

Yes people unfortunately do have to resort to legal recourse far too often* - including Guide Dog owners - but that doesn't change what the law actually is.
*https://www.reasonableaccess.org.uk/resources/links/#Spreadsheet_of_UK_disability_discrimination_legal_cases_complaints


^ technically service dogs in the UK are dogs that work with e.g. the police, but in America the term is used to refer to what we call assistance dogs.  Generally interchanging them is understandable thanks to context, although in formal situations care should be taken to use the correct term.

kah22

elsien said:

kah22 said:

nannytone_2 said:

I am a guide dog owner, and this is becoming a big issue.
Too many people are trying to pass a pet off as a service dog.

As always, it is the genuine service dog users that suffer because of the mi ority that try to game the system

I appreciate what you say, and I agree with you..  I'm sure people don't understand hidden conditions bipolar, I think been one. 

Myself I've epilepsy and found it very hard as a young man but now, thank god, hidden conditions are  the legislation is around specific training and the tasks that the animal carries out. 

I have  a friend whose very intelligent dog taught itself to alert to her physical health issues, and did save her life once, but it was not an accredited service dog.

One of the major difficulties there is no official accreditation. There is nothing laid down in statue as to what tasks the dog must be able to do
 I know I could take a picture of the dog, upload it with other information and for less than £50 I could have an ‘Assistance Dog,’  That’s playing the system and I’m not prepared to go down that road hence the reason for this thread. What does annoy me is that parts of the country find it relatively easy to find a decent Organization while a large part of the country can’t. Maybe there is a possible roll for bets here ?

nannytone_2

Just to be pedantic.....  no assistance dog has right of access to anywhere.
It is the owner that has the right of access.
While she is with ME, my guide dog can go almost anywhere, even if she is in harness or not.
If she is with someone else, she is just a dog, the same as any other pet

kah22

nannytone_2 said:

Just to be pedantic.....  no assistance dog has right of access to anywhere.
It is the owner that has the right of access.
While she is with ME, my guide dog can go almost anywhere, even if she is in harness or not.
If she is with someone else, she is just a dog, the same as any other pet

Right on, accepted 🐶

LinLui

marcia_ said:

 Plenty of premises do refuse entry to all but guide dogs for the blind. 

 Saying they are acting illegally is all good and well but it depends on what is actually a reasonable adjustment. The company can decide its not reasonable due to the nature of their business and can only be decided by a court should the complainer taking it that far. 

Sorry, but this is simply not true. Allowing an assistance dog access is not a "reasonable adjustment" - you are confusing different aspects of the law. All assistance dogs are allowed full access to anywhere a person with a disability is allowed, and access to a person with a disability cannot be refused for any reason other than legitimate safety grounds, which are very rare. The law treats an assistance dog as a tool, not a pet - it is therefore comparable to a wheelchair. 

@elsienI'm not saying that mental health is less disabling, because in some circumstances it isn't, but the legislation is around specific training and the tasks that the animal carries out. 

That is also not the case. Psychiatric assistance dogs are also covered by the Equality Act. The legislation mentions no "specific training" or "tasks" that the dog carries out, because that would be impossible to do. Even the relatively well recognised "guide dog" - and there are seeing dogs that are self-trained or trained by other methods because there is a chronic shortage of such animals - will fulfill a range of different tasks and activities for its owner. Neither people nor dogs are all the same. Many people, regardless of their physical or mental disability, are forced to self-train because there is a serious lack of other options. 

marcia_

LinLui said:

marcia_ said:

 Plenty of premises do refuse entry to all but guide dogs for the blind. 

 Saying they are acting illegally is all good and well but it depends on what is actually a reasonable adjustment. The company can decide its not reasonable due to the nature of their business and can only be decided by a court should the complainer taking it that far. 

Sorry, but this is simply not true. Allowing an assistance dog access is not a "reasonable adjustment" - you are confusing different aspects of the law. All assistance dogs are allowed full access to anywhere a person with a disability is allowed, and access to a person with a disability cannot be refused for any reason other than legitimate safety grounds, which are very rare. The law treats an assistance dog as a tool, not a pet - it is therefore comparable to a wheelchair. 

@elsienI'm not saying that mental health is less disabling, because in some circumstances it isn't, but the legislation is around specific training and the tasks that the animal carries out. 

That is also not the case. Psychiatric assistance dogs are also covered by the Equality Act. The legislation mentions no "specific training" or "tasks" that the dog carries out, because that would be impossible to do. Even the relatively well recognised "guide dog" - and there are seeing dogs that are self-trained or trained by other methods because there is a chronic shortage of such animals - will fulfill a range of different tasks and activities for its owner. Neither people nor dogs are all the same. Many people, regardless of their physical or mental disability, are forced to self-train because there is a serious lack of other options. 

"The Equalities Act 2010 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (NI) say that reasonable adjustments must be made in order to avoid discriminating against disabled people" 

"Emotional support animals (ESAs) are not defined in UK legislation. Service providers are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. It is unlikely to be a reasonable adjustment for service providers to be required to give access to multiple types of ESAs, and dogs who are not trained as assistance dogs."

 What is a reasonable adjustment can be decided by the business owner and can only be challenged and changed by a Court. 

Spoonie_Turtle

marcia_ said:

LinLui said:

marcia_ said:

 Plenty of premises do refuse entry to all but guide dogs for the blind. 

 Saying they are acting illegally is all good and well but it depends on what is actually a reasonable adjustment. The company can decide its not reasonable due to the nature of their business and can only be decided by a court should the complainer taking it that far. 

Sorry, but this is simply not true. Allowing an assistance dog access is not a "reasonable adjustment" - you are confusing different aspects of the law. All assistance dogs are allowed full access to anywhere a person with a disability is allowed, and access to a person with a disability cannot be refused for any reason other than legitimate safety grounds, which are very rare. The law treats an assistance dog as a tool, not a pet - it is therefore comparable to a wheelchair. 

@elsienI'm not saying that mental health is less disabling, because in some circumstances it isn't, but the legislation is around specific training and the tasks that the animal carries out. 

That is also not the case. Psychiatric assistance dogs are also covered by the Equality Act. The legislation mentions no "specific training" or "tasks" that the dog carries out, because that would be impossible to do. Even the relatively well recognised "guide dog" - and there are seeing dogs that are self-trained or trained by other methods because there is a chronic shortage of such animals - will fulfill a range of different tasks and activities for its owner. Neither people nor dogs are all the same. Many people, regardless of their physical or mental disability, are forced to self-train because there is a serious lack of other options. 

"The Equalities Act 2010 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (NI) say that reasonable adjustments must be made in order to avoid discriminating against disabled people" 

"Emotional support animals (ESAs) are not defined in UK legislation. Service providers are required to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. It is unlikely to be a reasonable adjustment for service providers to be required to give access to multiple types of ESAs, and dogs who are not trained as assistance dogs."

 What is a reasonable adjustment can be decided by the business owner and can only be challenged and changed by a Court. 

Right, but this thread is about assistance dogs not ESAs.

Your focus on 'reasonable adjustments' misses the fact that discrimination on the grounds of disability - including requiring an assistance dog to access places and services - is explicitly illegal.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/assistance-dogs-guide-all-businesses?return-url=https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/search?keys=assistance+dog

"It is unlawful for a service provider to discriminate against a disabled person in the following ways:

Direct discrimination: treating a person less favourably than others because they are disabled or perceived to be disabled. For example, refusing to allow entry to disabled customers, whether or not they have assistance dogs.

Indirect discrimination: where a particular policy has a worse impact on disabled people than on people who are not disabled. For example, a ‘no dogs’ policy will have a worse impact on disabled people using assistance dogs and could be indirect discrimination unless the policy can be objectively justified.

Discrimination arising from disability: treating someone unfavourably because of something connected to their disability. For example, refusing the same level of service to a disabled person because they have an assistance dog.

Failure to make reasonable adjustments: where a physical feature, provision or practice puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage the service provider has a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage. For example, it will often be reasonable to disapply a ‘no dogs’ policy for assistance dog owners and a failure to do so would amount to unlawful discrimination.

Disability harassment: treating someone in a way which makes them feel humiliated, offended or degraded for reasons related to their disability."

(There are more but those are likely the most directly relevant to the OP's friend.)

And yes, the DDA (NI) also prohibits discrimination, including for accessing goods and services.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents

LinLui

@Spoonie_Turtle

Totally. 

I was very careful in my use of language. I was not speaking about Emotional Support Animals, but Psychiatric Assistance Dogs, which are not the same thing. An assistance dog is a tool, like a wheelchair or a walking stick. Business owners do not get to tell people that someone cannot bring their wheelchair or walking stick on to the premises.

What people are getting caught up on is the "It is unlikely to be a reasonable adjustment for service providers to be required to give access to multiple types of ESAs, and dogs who are not trained as assistance dogs." In the UK there are very few organisations providing training or trained dogs, and for many people costs may be are prohibitive. There is a serious shortage and so people with very real needs are forced to self-train. That does not mean that the dogs are badly trained, and there should not be an assumption that they are. There is provision to exclude a dog where its behaviour is disruptive, but that should not mean that the assumption is that any and all service dogs who are not RNIB trained guide dogs should be banned; and the law doies not give people the right to make such assumptions. 

There is a simple solution. Many parts of the USA have this problem, and they do not "register" the organisations - they "road test" the dogs. They have a set series of tests to determine that a service dog is trained to a set standard, similar to a driving test. Pass that and you get "registered". 

I'd like to say that it is shocking the degree to which people still believe that excluding those with disabilities is justifiable. But for many of us it is a daily occcurence, and it becomes tiring having to constantly fight for the right to be treated as an equal - often by people who "would never dream of discriminating". I am sure that those here arguing that businesses etc should have the right to exclude us would never consider themselves as discriminating - but they are doing exactly that. They are telling those of us that need service dogs that we have no right to a normal life, and that the wants of an able-bodied person are more important than the needs of a disabled one.