Question 1

Disabled Access

Accepted Answer

Disabled Access Q: We were interested to read your advice in October 2018 regarding reasonable adaptations to the communal area of a block where a request is made by a resident leaseholder. We have a disabled resident whose wife died recently. He is now asking for us to modify the entrance doors to the block with automatic opening doors so that he can access easily as he either has to use a wheelchair or walking stick and finds it difficult to hold the door open. He has lived here for eight years and is saying that previously his wife held open the doors for him. She passed away approximately 18 months ago. We have had quotes for the work he needs to do and suggested that he has to pay for these works himself. He is not objecting necessarily at this time (although he may do so when crunch comes) but he found his own contractor who will do the job cheaper. One of our issues is that the doors are linked to a central system with keypads that allow access in and out of the front gates and entrance doors to each block. These are operated by each resident by a handset in their own flat. All of this equipment is contracted to a company to whom we pay an annual fee to maintain and repair where necessary and attend if there are any issues. To give him what he is asking for means modifying the entry system to his block - there are 4 other flats in this block. However, the entry system still needs to be installed so it works with the existing equipment elsewhere as the main gate is also involved and each resident is able to use their key pass to enter each block. We are concerned that if we allow a third party into the equation it could cause problems in the event of any repairs required and difficulties in ascertaining exactly which company should be called. We want to say to the resident the following: He can have the automatic door openers as long as no other resident objects (we have not yet asked other residents about this at all. He must pay for the installation and ongoing maintenance, in addition if we need to prepare any paperwork or additions to the lease he must pay for this also.- We object to him using his own company to do the work and insist that only our contracted company which we have used for many years and are happy with do the work. We have negotiated with the company concerning the price and there is now only approximately £800 difference in cost (our company being the higher). FPRA Chairman Bob Smytherman replies: I respond from a practical perspective, but we may need to ask our legal advisors for a more detailed review of the lease which will take a little time. As directors, it’s your decision whether or not to agree to a request for a ‘reasonable adjustment’ and you quite right to insist this should be done by your appointed contractor, not a third party, as this is a communal door and therefore your responsibility. I would add that one resident’s objection would on its own would not be grounds for objection but the directors would need to satisfy themselves that the installation does not pose a risk to other residents. The resident would need to understand that the directors must retain full control of the installation at all times. FPRA Legal Adviser Nick Roberts gives further advice: I would firstly say that the reply that Bob gave you by email suggests a perfectly sensible and ethical way forward. You may well wish to follow it. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the assumption that Bob makes about your being required (as a matter of law) to make “reasonable adjustments” to the common parts to accommodate this. I think the confusion arises because section 36 of the Equality Act 2010 does refer to those in charge of common parts having to make “reasonable adjustments”. But the section has never actually been brought into force by the Government. Before it can be brought into force, it needs the Government to issue Regulations to clarify how adjustments are to be made, and to set out a procedure for resolving disputes. This has not been done, as it is proving extremely difficult. In your case, there would not be an insuperable problem. So far as I can see, doors which open automatically would assist your disabled resident, and would not inconvenience anyone else. But we in FPRA have come across a number of instances where a disabled resident wants to install, say, a stairlift, and other residents object, on the basis that they have a sight problem, and will trip over it; or that they have limited mobility, and can manage the stairs as they are, but not with if a stairlift rail is running up the stairs (and they can’t / prefer not to use the stairlift). Because section 36 of the Equality Act 2010 is still not in force, the relevant law is still the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. the Disability Discrimination Act. This requires those in control of premises to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities, but falls short of requiring adjustments to the fabric of the building. So a landlord or management company might be required, say, to provide braille letters and numbers on the lift controls, or to provide information about residents’ meetings in an alternative format. It might also perhaps extend to ensuring the lift buttons were accessible by someone using a wheelchair – but not adjustments requiring building works. I have set out the law in some detail, as even some organisations which purport to advise people with disabilities seem unaware that s.36 of the Equality Act 2010 has never been brought into force. I think what this boils down to is this. Your disabled resident does not have the legal right to insist upon your making the alterations he requires. If, therefore, you are prepared to make the alterations, but on your terms, the issue of whether he could insist on, say, the works being carried out by his contractor, simply does not arise. There would be no legal basis upon which to challenge your decision. [Submitted May 2019]

Question 2

Disabled Access

Accepted Answer

Disabled Access Q: We were interested to read your advice in October 2018 regarding reasonable adaptations to the communal area of a block where a request is made by a resident leaseholder. We have a disabled resident whose wife died recently. He is now asking for us to modify the entrance doors to the block with automatic opening doors so that he can access easily as he either has to use a wheelchair or walking stick and finds it difficult to hold the door open. He has lived here for eight years and is saying that previously his wife held open the doors for him. She passed away approximately 18 months ago. We have had quotes for the work he needs to do and suggested that he has to pay for these works himself. He is not objecting necessarily at this time (although he may do so when crunch comes) but he found his own contractor who will do the job cheaper. One of our issues is that the doors are linked to a central system with keypads that allow access in and out of the front gates and entrance doors to each block. These are operated by each resident by a handset in their own flat. All of this equipment is contracted to a company to whom we pay an annual fee to maintain and repair where necessary and attend if there are any issues. To give him what he is asking for means modifying the entry system to his block - there are 4 other flats in this block. However, the entry system still needs to be installed so it works with the existing equipment elsewhere as the main gate is also involved and each resident is able to use their key pass to enter each block. We are concerned that if we allow a third party into the equation it could cause problems in the event of any repairs required and difficulties in ascertaining exactly which company should be called. We want to say to the resident the following: He can have the automatic door openers as long as no other resident objects (we have not yet asked other residents about this at all. He must pay for the installation and ongoing maintenance, in addition if we need to prepare any paperwork or additions to the lease he must pay for this also.- We object to him using his own company to do the work and insist that only our contracted company which we have used for many years and are happy with do the work. We have negotiated with the company concerning the price and there is now only approximately £800 difference in cost (our company being the higher). FPRA Chairman Bob Smytherman replies: I respond from a practical perspective, but we may need to ask our legal advisors for a more detailed review of the lease which will take a little time. As directors, it’s your decision whether or not to agree to a request for a ‘reasonable adjustment’ and you quite right to insist this should be done by your appointed contractor, not a third party, as this is a communal door and therefore your responsibility. I would add that one resident’s objection would on its own would not be grounds for objection but the directors would need to satisfy themselves that the installation does not pose a risk to other residents. The resident would need to understand that the directors must retain full control of the installation at all times. FPRA Legal Adviser Nick Roberts gives further advice: I would firstly say that the reply that Bob gave you by email suggests a perfectly sensible and ethical way forward. You may well wish to follow it. Unfortunately, I do not agree with the assumption that Bob makes about your being required (as a matter of law) to make “reasonable adjustments” to the common parts to accommodate this. I think the confusion arises because section 36 of the Equality Act 2010 does refer to those in charge of common parts having to make “reasonable adjustments”. But the section has never actually been brought into force by the Government. Before it can be brought into force, it needs the Government to issue Regulations to clarify how adjustments are to be made, and to set out a procedure for resolving disputes. This has not been done, as it is proving extremely difficult. In your case, there would not be an insuperable problem. So far as I can see, doors which open automatically would assist your disabled resident, and would not inconvenience anyone else. But we in FPRA have come across a number of instances where a disabled resident wants to install, say, a stairlift, and other residents object, on the basis that they have a sight problem, and will trip over it; or that they have limited mobility, and can manage the stairs as they are, but not with if a stairlift rail is running up the stairs (and they can’t / prefer not to use the stairlift). Because section 36 of the Equality Act 2010 is still not in force, the relevant law is still the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. the Disability Discrimination Act. This requires those in control of premises to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities, but falls short of requiring adjustments to the fabric of the building. So a landlord or management company might be required, say, to provide braille letters and numbers on the lift controls, or to provide information about residents’ meetings in an alternative format. It might also perhaps extend to ensuring the lift buttons were accessible by someone using a wheelchair – but not adjustments requiring building works. I have set out the law in some detail, as even some organisations which purport to advise people with disabilities seem unaware that s.36 of the Equality Act 2010 has never been brought into force. I think what this boils down to is this. Your disabled resident does not have the legal right to insist upon your making the alterations he requires. If, therefore, you are prepared to make the alterations, but on your terms, the issue of whether he could insist on, say, the works being carried out by his contractor, simply does not arise. There would be no legal basis upon which to challenge your decision. [Submitted May 2019]

Disabled Access

Search

Articles Archive