Legislation
Disability Descrimination Act 1995 - Part 2
Previous page Next Page
LEGISLATION AND THE TRADER
Following on from part 1 of this series, we will continue to look at the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 [DDA] insofar as its effect upon ‘service providers’ is concerned.
Definition is all important. The Act defines both a ‘disabled person’ and the word ‘disability’. The latter is defined as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial, long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities such as shopping where as a ‘disabled person’ is defined as a person with an obvious and serious impairment and likely to meet the legal definition of a ‘disabled person’ under the Act.
There would be no doubt that someone with on one of the following impairments would fall within the legal definition of ‘disability’.
- blindness
- deafness
- an amputated limb
- a mobility impairment that requires the use of a wheelchair or scooter
- a severe long-term medical condition such as aids, multiple scierosis and insulin-dependent diabetes.
However, sometimes it will not be immediately obvious whether a person falls within the DDA’s definition of a disabled person. For example, someone with one of the following impairments may or may not fall within the DDA’s definition of a disabled person:
- partial sight [e.g. a person wears some correctional product which do not fully restore full sight]
- vision that is not fully corrected
- impaired hearing [e.g. uses a hearing aid]
- impaired mobility [e.g. uses a stick or has arthritis]
- learning difficulties
- mental illness
- a disfigurement
- a frail elderly person
For an individual to claim the ’rights’ provided under the 1995 Act, he or she must fall within at least one or other of the above definitions. If there is any doubt about whether the ’service user’ falls within the statutory definition of a disabled person, then the following three questions should help:
- does the impairment adversely affect the person claiming ‘discrimination’ ability to carry out ‘normal day-to-day activities’?
- Is the impairment’s adverse effect sufficiently substantial?
- is the impairment’s adverse effect sufficiently long-term?
To met the ‘Acts’ requirements as to the definition of ‘disability’, the ’service user’ should be say ’yes’ to every question.
The ’Act’ says that the impairment must have an adverse effect on one of the following:
- mobility
- ability to lift, carry or move ordinary objects
- manual dexterity
- physical co-ordination
- continence
- speech, hearing or eyesight memory ability to concentrate, learn or understand or recognising the risk of physical danger
Obviously, much of what has been said here is not necessarily what should be considered as a whole if a ’service user’ claims ’discrimination’. Only parts of the impairment or adverse effect will be sufficient to make a judgement as to the ‘service users’ claims. It would be the task of a solicitor and/or the DRC on behalf of the ’service provider’ and likewise somebody such as the Disability Rights Commission and/or a solicitor on behalf of the ‘service user’ to try and investigate and settle the matter without attending at court.
When the 1995 Act was first introduced, at least two bodies were set up under the DDA to advice the government on issues related to the operation of the DDA The National Disability Council [NDC] and the Northern Ireland Disability Council [NIDC] but these have now all gone leaving just the DDA to currently investigate individual complaints. Incidentally, the NDC and the NIDC did not have these powers. The Disability Access Rights Advise Service [DARAS] was also formed as an ’advisory body’ who ‘advised’ on the 1995 DDA. This too has gone although much of the work carried out by them is still available as a reference to ‘users’ and ‘providers’.
Back to top
Previous page Next Page |
