UK Employment Law
UK Employment Law Questions Answered by Verified Experts
Hi I am not sure I fully understand your question. Are you saying that in providing a service was the solicitor under a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments?
The Sol was fully aware of the adjustments and it was always implied that they would needed. And the Solicitor enquired about them in relation to her. The only thing that is missing are the words, 'I will adhere to these adjustments'.
I know the Sol had a duty to comply with the adjustments.
It just the Sol is now saying there needed to be an express agreement that they would adhere to the adjustments. However, I know this isn't true as adjustments are anticipatory. However, I don't know the best way to present the fact that an express agreement wasn't needed. Is there case law or would the legislation cover it better? And do you have a link to the resources and subsection if relevant?
So this is in connection with your claim against your employer not in relation to the conduct of the solicitor?
No this is only about the Sol there never was an employer its always been goods and services
Ok thanks, XXXXX XXXXX is in employment law which is why I assumed it was about an employment situation. Can you tell me a bit more about the failure to make the reasonable adjustment so that I can understand the background.
I have a memory problem, so I need communications to be within good time. Thats basically it, so that I have less chance of forgetting
Ok thanks for the information let me just do a bit of research then I will get back to you. As it is Friday night it may be some point tomorrow if that is ok with you?
Thats fine, cheers
20 Duty to make adjustments(1) Where this Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments on a person,this section, sections 21 and 22 and the applicable Schedule apply; and for thosepurposes, a person on whom the duty is imposed is referred to as A.(2) The duty comprises the following three requirements.(3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practiceof A’s puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to arelevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take suchsteps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.(4) The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts adisabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter incomparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it isreasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.(5) The third requirement is a requirement, where a disabled person would, butfor the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage inrelation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled,to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to provide the auxiliary aid.(6) Where the first or third requirement relates to the provision of information, thesteps which it is reasonable for A to have to take include steps for ensuring that
Above is the relevant section of the Equality Act 2010 dealing with reasonable adjustments in a service provision. So long as the disabled person can show that a reasonable adjustment is necessary to remove a disadvantage then the Service Provider is in breach of s. 20 Equality Act 2010 by failing to make the adjustment.
The Act does not require that the 'reasonable adjustment' to be 'agreed' so the solicitor is wrong that this is required. If it was a requirement it would be set out in the statutory provision.
There is no case law on this point as it is not something that a person can reasonably argue.
I hope that helps.
If you have any further questions please ask. If I have answered your question I would be grateful if you would take the time to rate my answer. Thank you and all the best.
Surely a better extract for citation would be that RA's are anticipatory? Where might that be found?
There can be nothing clearer that the statutory enactment that set's out the law. I am not sure what you are looking for? On the basis of what you say there is no argument that the RA needed to be agreed.
Surely, the anticipatory aspect shows that not only do they not have to be agreed they don't actual have to be mentioned.
why are you focusing on the word anticipatory? The law is as set out in s.20 of the Equality Act and is quite straightforward. If a person is a a disadvantage and a reasonable adjustment can be made in a service provision it should be made. It amounts to discrimination if it is not made.
There is no mention of the Act that it needs to be anticipatory or agreed so there is no need for you to worry about that. It is for the person against whom you have made the claim to defend there claim. The position from your point of view is quite clear.
What I am saying, ultimately, is that you don't need to disprove their arguments in defence. Your position is clear, you were at a disadvantage and the adjustment should have been made in accordance with s.20. It appears they are trying to fudge the issue by saying it needed to be agreed.
Okay I get it cheers :)
No problem, if you are happy with my answer I would be grateful if you would take the time to rate it as I am not otherwise credited for my time. Thank you and all the best.