Higher rate licences

[roger]

Dear All

 

I have been reading about this higher licensing issue. From my point of view BW is going to break the law if they increase the licences as they propose. There would be issues of accessibility for these CC's and Multi User boats if they had people with disabilities using them. It is in direct contravenation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The low licence fees at present reasonably reflect the difficulties of accessing the waterways. If BW wants to up the fees then they must by law at the same time provide increased access. Knowing the situation, it will be years before BW can ever hope to make enough progress to justify its present proposals.

 

Roger

[Richard Bustens]

Roger

What are you on about .?

If that puts them out of order ,they are out of order now.

I think the law states that disabled access has to be provided where passable, not in every case.

It is clearly not passable to put disabled access in in every case, we are on a first floor office block, and there is no wheelchair access and no way of doing this.

And i can not see how putting the price of somethin up can effect the Disability Discrimination Act

Edited June 30, 2005 by Richard Bustens

[roger]

Roger

What are you on about .?

If that puts them out of order ,they are out of order now.

I think the law states that disabled access has to be provided where passable, not in every case.

It is clearly not passable to put disabled access in in every case, we are on a first floor office block, and there is no wheelchair access and no way of doing this.

And i can not see how putting the price of somethin up can effect the Disability Discrimination Act

24627[/snapback]

 

Basically, it is illegal to force those less able to use the facilities/services to pay a higher charge. If a higher charge is to be made, and enforced in a justifiable way, then clearly BW will have to get its system up to scratch or face penalties. This is impossible under present circumstances!! It can be argued by BW that the reasonbleness of current licensing fees reflects the issues of accessibility, but to make such increases as BW are proposing, will definitely make BW out of order!

 

I understand about your first floor office access. However, unless a reasonble alternative for a wheelchair user (by moving your offices to a more suitable location) your company are basically breaking the law if wheelchair users had to access your office (eg for a meeting) and couldnt use it. Richard, many new buildings that are now being built have to be virtualy 100% accessible.

 

The 'reasonbleness' in factors such as age and infrastructure problems is such that it is against the law to impose higher charges if restricted groups cannot access them in the same way as others. If a wheelchair bound boater (or a multi-user group consisting of different disability users) was forced to pay higher charges for a waterway they had less acess to than others then that is a breach of legislation.

 

Richard I do not want to dwell into this too much I just thought I needed to make a comment on BW's proposed licensing structure, in my view BW is too far behind on accessibility to justify their proposed increases. Richard, I'm not wanting to involve myself in any of those contentious debates that have been running on the forums! This is a different issue altogether!

[Richard Bustens]

Roger

I accept that new builds have 100% but i can not see how if a building can not be altered without demolishing it, can be.

 

but you seem to know about what you are talking about.

 

i dont see what the cost of something has to do with it if access is not to the standard it is not and surly cost does not come into this.

[roger]

Roger

I accept that new builds have 100% but i can not see how if a building can not be altered without demolishing it,  can be.

 

but you seem to know about what you are talking about.

 

i dont see what the cost of something has to do with it if access is not to the standard it is not  and surly cost does not come into this.

24631[/snapback]

 

BW is a service provider and by all means it must comply with the legislation. If its canals cant provide reasonable access for disability users then it can't hike a hefty licence fee for those wanting to use, but cannot use due to restricted access. The towpath does not convey a fee for users, so although towpaths are now being improved, there is still much to be done. As no charges are being imposed for towpath users, there is no justifiable breach of legislation as long as BW are aware in due course they must undertake work to make towpaths more accessible.

 

With boaters, this is different because there is a charge made. This is the licensing fee!! To use a boat and enjoy the waterways one needs access in many places. If a disability user could only use a canal at say just a couple of access points where the towpath and access to their specially adapted car was possible, then an increased licence would breach the legislation!

 

There are many places on the waterways where access is impossible, and although I dont suggest that access is 100% possible on the waterways, there are many areas it can be improved. It is clear that BW cant impose increased fees before it makes improvements! Every service provider is bound by the legislation - police, railways, buses, airlines, waterways, councils, entertaiment centres, shopping centres, offices etc etc. If BW imposed a hike in fees and a disabled waterway boater(s) could not access the canals any better than before then they have a right to legal action against BW!

 

With reference to the CC debate that has gone on, I dont want to be involved in it but if a CC user was disabled and they had this increase imposed upon them, it would be very likely be that an illegal imposition of fees had been imposed if relevant accessbility improvements were not made. The CC user would not have to be the licensed owner of the boat, it could well be that a disabled member of their family found they could not use the canals any better than before hence the increase would not be justifiable.

 

I hope this explains it all Richard.

 

Roger

Edited June 30, 2005 by roger

[David]

The disability discrimination act now in force is a potential minefield for anyone ignoring it Richard.

Your position on a first floor office, accepting the building cannot be physically modified "reasonably" means by now you should be able to show you have in place an other arrangement or system to facilitate a disabled person i.e. a room accessible to all disabled which can be one you hire/borrow/etc as required but it's location and it's resources must be available and suitable to any disabled person with reason to want to met you.

BW are putting in ramps, grabrails, dropdown rails, wide showers etc admitted slowly but I have seen them, we have one ajacent to our mooring, so they could argue they are addressing the issue (and maybe argue they need more money to expediate the re-newals Rodger).

Incidentally I do not see a button on this web site to provide an enlarging of the text facility, for people with poor eyesight, thats a breach of the act in itself.

David

[Richard Bustens]

well yes if someone shouts up i will go down and meet them on the street. have been doing this for years.

[David]

Thats the problem Richard, if your office deals with the public and you do that you can now be fined under the Act if you are reported for doing it. You have to put all reasonable measures in place to NOT discriminate i.e. have a suitable arrangement in place that removes the discrimination you are proposing or have been doing for years with people who cannot access your office.

I can tell you this if you wanted to apply for planning permission for use of your office dealing with members of the public today you would have to prove to the planning inspector how you would not discriminate. Thats whats happening new planning is being enforced, existing building/facilities/services are largely not being pulled up yet, but only until someone complains

David

Product Development Manager

Cefndy Healthcare

(4th largest manufacturers of disability aids in the UK)

[Richard Bustens]

Well David , i can see that but what can i do the premises is not alterable there is a footpath along one side and other buildings adjoining to both sides with the ground floor shop extending 100+ foot to the back there is only steps up to me and no place to put a lift in.

Not only do we have offices up hear but also a sales floor some 1200 sq foot with customers in and out all day.

What can not be done can not be done, so what are you saying all buildings that can not get disabled into them must be shut? that would mean thousands of empty buildings that can not be used for anything.

[roger]

David is right. It only takes someone to complain about a situation to bring the attention of the law to it. To bring this back to licences, that is the analogy. If licences were increased it would only take someone to complain for BW to be taken to task if they hadnt justified improved accessibility for the increased fees. I am not sure if David is correct that BW could justify a increase in licences to pay for planned accessibility improvements!

 

I think the EA is ahead of BW on this. Their current works programme involves a lot of accessibility improvements at locks, etc. But to be honest they probably have their work cut out a bit easier on the Thames due to all its locks being manned and having been built in such a way as to cater for leisure traffic that fortunately means access is more readiable. They have recently done several major infrastructure works that have improved accessibility for disabled boaters, one of these being the works at Teddington lock. Compare with BW and see just how far behind BW are, especially (as far as I know) the EA havent had any major licence increases recently. The EA appear to be working on the idea that better accessibility means increased income (a philosophy that the Disability Rights Commission has a belief in.)

 

Yes there are new showers and other facilities being built, these are in few places at the moment and therefore not justifiable to force a hike in fees on disabled users as these facilites are new ones and don't generally lend to what is categorised in terms of improved accessibility! Its localised and doesnt necessarily constitute an improvement.

 

I really dont think Bw can justify increases to pay for improvements prior to implementing them. I really dont think that is how the legislation works as I understand it allows increases once improvements have been made (and only if they help to give disabled people a much more equal enjoyment of the facilities on offer when compared to other users.)

Roger

Edited June 30, 2005 by roger

[David]

Hi John

I'm not getting at you, I sympathise, like most of todays legislation it's a nightmare.

From what you say about your layout this is what you could do, make the ground sales floor accessible, (it maybe already) if there is a step up in the door either construct a a ramp or even have wooden ramp available to put in place if needed, that satisfies the entrance. If your sales people have an office designate that as an area to hold meetings with people (disabled) who need to have meetings with you (as opposed to customers just coming in to use your sales counter) or mark out a small area with floor tape as a designated area even put a sign up like you get for viewing areas for MOT tests, put it in your company policy manual. If doorways are to narrow for a wheel chair then you need to try and widen them (most doors are OK anyway) that could be the expensive one. If your toilets are available normally to the public they must again be accessible and have grab rails etc if not for the public no need. Doing just that would show you are addressing the issue within your capabilities. So it's not as bad as it first seems just needs thinking around. But it does have cost implications for most people dealing with the public and the full impact has not yet been recognised by many businesses

David

[roger]

Hi John

24650[/snapback]

 

You mean Richard?

[Richard Bustens]

Hi

I dont have any ground floor premises at all. just a double set of doors that go straight up 3 flights of stairs turning round 180 degrees

If you picture a building that is in excess of 100yds by 100yds sq with all the downstairs being a department store and other business i have a set of offices 8 in total up these stairs and running along the 100yds frontage and about 10-15 yds deep. so as you can see there is no other way in, the fire exit is across the roof of the store below.

[roger]

Hi

I dont have any ground floor premises at all. just a double set of doors that go straight up 3 flights of stairs turning round 180 degrees

If you picture a building that is in excess of 100yds by 100yds sq with all the downstairs being a department store and other business i have a set of offices 8 in total up these stairs and running along the 100yds frontage and about 10-15 yds deep. so as you can see there is no other way in, the fire exit is across the roof of the store below.

24653[/snapback]

 

Richard

If you make an area downstairs specially for customers with disabilites in lieu of the offices upstairs, you will be going some way towards making the situation more acceptable. If you do have any disabled customers or clients then you will be under some obligation to make some adjustments. Often improvements or 'reasonble adjustments' benefit other users too. These do not have to be costly. They could be small changes.

 

Let me tell you, Richard, you have a situation that is not complex like the waterways! I wouldnt want to be in charge of improving disability access on the canals because it is anightmare, yet I know that the law is in force now and that BW has to make some real decisions before it can increase its licences!!!!

Edited June 30, 2005 by roger

[Richard Bustens]

Roger

I dont have any downstairs as you enter the doors there is a 3 foot area before the stairs start.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Richard Bustens

[roger]

Roger

I dont have any downstairs as you enter the doors there is a 3 foot area before the stairs start.

24656[/snapback]

 

Then you might need a portacabin outside! But Richard, find out if you have any clients with particular requirements first! Maybe you dont have any clients with disabilities yet? If you do get one in the future do find out their feelings and talk about what could be done to assist the situation. If you did have a lot of clients who had disabilities then perhaps you would need a lift on the outside of the building or something like that to give access to other floors. Things like this would be long term projects. It would all depend on what the nature of your business is and how many clients with disabilities you have - if any!

 

Hope this helps.

Roger

[fender]

Roger

I dont have any downstairs as you enter the doors there is a 3 foot area before the stairs start.

24656[/snapback]

 

 

Whats your offices got to do with BW fees?

[david and julie]

Roger

I dont have any downstairs as you enter the doors there is a 3 foot area before the stairs start.

24656[/snapback]

 

In reality Richard the PC brigade would sooner put you out of business if you can't comply with their petty schemes. We must all remember most people who instigate these outrageous and pathetic rules are, generally speaking, either making a living from it or work for local councils/civil service or other, bottomless pit type organisations.

 

At the end of the day historic structures, such as canals and locks etc, shouldn't be altered to suit the disabled. Much as we all sympathise with their plight, they must expect some inconvenience sometimes. Canals, locks, lift bridges etc, are not safe places for the disabled to be, indeed some able bodied people are bad enough. Yes, provide some suitable access points to get on and off boats, so that they can have a ride on/in or drive them themselves, but no more.

 

I can't see what all this as got to do with CC's though. As anybody actually ever seen a wheelchair bound CC?

[fender]

I can't see what all this as got to do with CC's though. As anybody actually ever seen a wheelchair bound CC?

24663[/snapback]

 

No, but if there were any it seems BW would be in trouble for not complying with this PC business. I do remember a few years back a wheelchair steerer's boating adventures - highlighting the problems of using the canals - was featured in Waterways World. There was recently some issue, as I recall, concerning a disabled boater and the River Cam's navigation authority concerning fees and access problems though I dont have the news item in question to refer to.

[roger]

At the end of the day historic structures, such as canals and locks etc, shouldn't be altered to suit the disabled. Much as we all sympathise with their plight, they must expect some inconvenience sometimes.

24663[/snapback]

 

David & Julie,

 

Regarding your quote, is it fair that disabled people should suffer an 'inconvenience' in return for a higher licence fee? That is the point of this topic isnt it!

[David Schweizer]

I think you have got yoursrelf in a muddle here Roger. have you actually read the Act, or are you relying upon a precised version issued by an interest group. The law is not absolute, and does make provision for reasonable variation, although I recognise that some people are already trying to use this clause to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

 

As far as the towpath is concerned I think you are on a hiding to nothing. Legally the public have no right of access to the towpath, nor do they have any right to walk on it. The public have what is technically known as permitted access, and BW have the legal right to withdraw that access at any time without warning and without giving a reason. They used this provision to close the towpath during the foot and mouth outbreak without the need to obtain a Government order.

 

If you pursue your arguement rergarding equality of access to it's logical conclusion, far from improving access for disabled people, access could be denied to eveyone. Having said that BW are sympathetic to the access needs of disabled people, and where the towpath is of a standard where wheelchairs can use it, they will install special access gates etc at places where the towpath is accessible from the road and where there is adequate parking. Where I live BW have even introduced a small car park where three of the seven spaces are dedicated to disabled car badge holders. The answer is not to threaten BW but do as our Parish Council did, and talk to BW. They do sometimes listen, and this was before the Act was put in place

[roger]

I think you have got yoursrelf in a muddle here Roger. have you actually read the Act, or are you relying upon a precised version issued by an interest group. The law is not absolute, and does make provision for reasonable variation, although I recognise that some people are already trying to use this clause to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

 

As far as the towpath is concerned I think you are on a hiding to nothing. Legally the public have no right of access to the towpath, nor do they have any right to walk on it. The public have what is technically known as permitted access, and BW have the legal right to withdraw that access at any time without warning and without giving a reason. They used this provision to close the towpath during the foot and mouth outbreak without the need to obtain a Government order.

 

If you pursue your arguement rergarding equality of access to it's logical conclusion, far from improving access for disabled people, access could be denied to eveyone. Having said that BW are sympathetic to the access needs of disabled people, and where the towpath is of a standard where wheelchairs can use it, they will install special access gates etc at places where the towpath is accessible from the road and where there is adequate parking. Where I live BW have even introduced a small car park where three of the seven spaces are dedicated to disabled car badge holders. The answer is not to threaten BW but do as our Parish Council did, and talk to BW. They do sometimes listen, and this was before the Act was put in place

24667[/snapback]

 

David,

 

I speak from experience. I am registered disabled and have had to take action against service organisations that have expected a high charge for the use of inferior facilities. Of course the law is not absolute in all cases but it does expect reasonably that service providers do not exploit disability either!

 

The towpath is of course what you describe as permitted access, but it still doesnt mean BW can avoid its oblligations here. You are totally wrong David. As a service provider (by this it provides a service in terms of having a walkway along the canal or river) it is therefore bound in its legal obligations to improve that access.

 

BW is sympathetic but it doesnt mean it actually does things as much as you say. Its website is said to be accessible (its document Waterways for People tells us this proudly) but look at its website and you'll find it has no sort of provision of any sort for disabled people!

 

Of course the answer is not to threaten BW but to make it aware of its obligations. Having said this, it is clear that BW, in introducing its new proposals for its licensing structure, hasnt taken into consideration the other important factors I mentioned, therefore I think it is important that BW is aware of the legal obligations before it sets out to impose higher licensing fees. There are multi user groups that run boats for people with disabilities, and if these were to pay a higher licence fee BW would be in breach of the legislation as the rate would not match what would be expected in terms of accessibility. I am sorry David but that is what it amounts to.

 

Its not a case of demanding equality for all, I havent even said that, but a case of expecting some reasonableness in being able to use the canals. Some of BW's work has actually made it more difficult for disabled users to use the waterways. (There is one recent improvement, which although quite aesthetically pleasing, has actually made it much more dangerous to access a canal and it is obvious that BW has no clue what it does.) BW has no disability officers of any kind. That is an amazing oversight for an organisation of this calibre!!

Edited June 30, 2005 by roger

[david and julie]

David & Julie,

 

Regarding your quote, is it fair that disabled people should suffer an 'inconvenience' in return for a higher licence fee? That is the point of this topic isnt it!

24666[/snapback]

You also said this,

Basically, it is illegal to force those less able to use the facilities/services to pay a higher charge. If a higher charge is to be made, and enforced in a justifiable way, then clearly BW will have to get its system up to scratch or face penalties.

Now I may be misunderstanding you here, but are you really saying the disabled should never pay an increased charge without some kind of benefit in return?

 

In reality the act probably means that the disabled should not pay over and above what anyone else pays, for the same thing. I would say this means, for example, a taxi driver can't charge more, even though he may have to do more and maybe take longer, whilst helping the disabled get in and out of his cab, than he would charge anyone else.

 

You are suggesting the disabled are being discriminated against, which is incorrect, the proposals suggested different groups of people or businesses, it is you that sees this as meaning the disabled. I was under the impression that most of the groups providing boating experiences etc, to the disabled or disadvantaged, were of charitable status.

 

Have the proposals actually suggested charging charities and the like any more?

[Alan Saunders]

I speak from experience. I am registered disabled and have had to take action against service organisations that have expected a high charge for the use of inferior facilities. Of course the law is not absolute in all cases but it does expect reasonably that service providers do not exploit disability either!

 

The towpath is of course what you describe as permitted access, but it still doesnt mean BW can avoid its oblligations here. You are totally wrong David. As a service provider (by this it provides a service in terms of having a walkway along the canal or river) it is therefore bound in its legal obligations to improve that access.

 

BW is sympathetic but it doesnt mean it actually does things as much as you say. Its website is said to be accessible (its document Waterways for People tells us this proudly) but look at its website and you'll find it has no sort of provision of any sort for disabled people!

 

Of course the answer is not to threaten BW but to make it aware of its obligations. Having said this, it is clear that BW, in introducing its new proposals for its licensing structure, hasnt taken into consideration the other important factors I mentioned, therefore I think it is important that BW is aware of the legal obligations before it sets out to impose higher licensing fees. There are multi user groups that run boats for people with disabilities, and if these were to pay a higher licence fee BW would be in breach of the legislation as the rate would not match what would be expected in terms of accessibility. I am sorry David but that is what it amounts to.

 

Its not a case of demanding equality for all, I havent even said that, but a case of expecting some reasonableness in being able to use the canals. Some of BW's work has actually made it more difficult for disabled users to use the waterways. (There is one recent improvement, which although quite aesthetically pleasing, has actually made it much more dangerous to access a canal and it is obvious that BW has no clue what it does.) BW has no disability officers of any kind. That is an amazing oversight for an organisation of this calibre!!

24675[/snapback]

I am, fortunately, not disabled but if I am overcharged I either demand a refund and resort to law if applicable or refuse to use the service and generally disparage it as opportunity arises.

 

I have some sympathy with BW in respect of the accessibility of its website. It is difficult enough to design a website that is accessible to the average user, to extend that access to all disabilities using whatever non-compliant software that they choose to is impossible - worse than having first floor offices over a department store. The 'accessibility' requirement destroyed my business, clients would not pay for it and I refused to provide a design that did not comply. See the BBC site for the simplest solution. If a law is seen as unreasonable most people will ignore it; some will chain themselves to railings and go to prison to uphold their view. I guess I am a wimp!

 

My mother, 83 years old, would need considerable assistance to board my canal boat from a nearby wharf. The wharf is devoted to the disabled but I have no right to use it. It is subsidised by BW. Other than a level surface at a suitable height from the water there are no facilities for the disabled. The facilities, ramps, wheelchair lifts etc. are provided on the boats that operate from the wharf. I suspect that most younger wheelchair users are far more motive (and risk-taking) than my mother yet they expect more than she does.

 

The law is an ass. If we are to achieve 'access for all' it is unreasonable to expect the service provider or his more able customers to pay for it. My mother had an excellent singing voice as a young woman but that did not entitle her to a 'pop-star' salary, quite the opposite! Despite her various disabilities the only concession she has is 'partially sighted' - she will soldier on, that's how her generation does it. Many younger people, confined to wheelchairs, have the same attitude and find that attitude will inspire others to help them to achieve their goals. My gliding club has a couple of disabled members, one confined to a wheelchair. You cannot imagine the technical challenges to a small, under-financed group that one wheelchair user poses but the club have taken it on due to the attitude of the disabled member, not in order to comply with some ill-formed legislation!

 

I see no relevance here to the proposed higher licences for CC or group boats. As I said, BW are already subsidising disabled facilities; they may, wisely, decide that boats dedicated to the registered disabled may continue to pay the lower licence - I would support this but I guess you would complain that it is discrimination?

 

Why pick on BW towpaths, which are not, generally, public rights of way? How do you get your wheelchair over the thousands of stiles on public footpaths? When my daughter was in a wheelchair (at one year old) my wife pushed her Maclaren Buggy (with three inch wheels) through a muddy field to 'pick-her-own' Christmas Tree - most wheelchair users would have less difficulty! Should the farm have made special provision or simply closed down their operation? Surely the young lady with a child in a push chair needed more assistance than the athlete confined to a wheelchair?

 

Let's aim for equal access for all but please don't close down access to the able in order to bring this about.

 

Alan

 

BTW I can no longer get an HGV licence because my uncorrected vision does not meet the DVLA (EU harmonised standards). On the other hand my 'disablement' gives me no entitlement. If I was, say, paralysed from the waist down with 6/20 uncorrected vision I could obtain an HGV licence. Do you want to fight the case? I believe someone is claiming a 'human rights violation'.

[roger]

I see no relevance here to the proposed higher licences for CC or group boats.  As I said, BW are already subsidising disabled facilities; they may, wisely, decide that boats dedicated to the registered disabled may continue to pay the lower licence - I would support this but I guess you would complain that it is discrimination?

 

Why pick on BW towpaths, which are not, generally, public rights of way?

 

Let's aim for equal access for all but please don't close down access to the able in order to bring this about.

 

I would support this too if boats or multi-user boats registered to the disabled were at the lower licence fee. So far I have not seen any reference to this. I can only see two licence categories that make no distinction whatsoever towards disabled users especially with the 2x increase proposed.

 

BW towpaths might not be public rights of way. But as I will point out, neither are the walkways in many shopping malls etc. Yet both are still subject to the same legislation. I dont see how this can be 'picking on BW towpaths?'

 

I think there is often a misconception about access. It doesnt mean shutting down it for the able bodied (how could you suggest this idea!)

 

The reference to CC's is purely theoretical. Its not a debate on CC's. Thanks for trying to drag it to that. Its that if there was a disabled cc user then the increased fees would not be justifiable. Any possible disabled cc user wouldnt have a mooring, hence access would be much more of a critical issue as an increase in licence couldnt justify the circumstances. Its just a way of looking at the issues of accessibility presented by increasing the licence fees. There are two proposed categories and it seems the higher rate could penalise certain users if there isnt the improvements to match it up.

Edited July 1, 2005 by roger