Legal Interpretations

[labman]

Re: Legal Interpretations

I would be more concerned with the words," to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage."

I fear these may stop the other section coming into play at all.

[labman]

Re: Legal Interpretations

"In the absence of any other explanation" - the explanation could be an institution trying its best to implement a plan which it is obliged to implement, being able to show substantial support and training put into place, yet the plan still failing to meet the needs of the person concerned.

[Magrew]

Re: Legal Interpretations

I would be more concerned with the words," to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage."

I fear these may stop the other section coming into play at all.

Labman, is this not the "reasonable adjustment" written in different terms, ie the implementation of the plan in this case at the beginning of the thread or the parking space in the example at the end of the post?

If I had included the whole of section 20 you would be aware that the first requirement is an adjustment of their provision, criteria or practices, the second is a physical adjustment and the third is auxiliary aids.

[Magrew]

Re: Legal Interpretations

"In the absence of any other explanation" - the explanation could be an institution trying its best to implement a plan which it is obliged to implement, being able to show substantial support and training put into place, yet the plan still failing to meet the needs of the person concerned.

In this response you are looking at this from a completely different perspective from me which is what I am trying to establish. Which one is the correct one.

You have viewed alternative actions as an explanation whether it was successful or not, I have viewed if a failure has been alleged then the respondent has to prove that they had effectively mitigated the disadvantage through an appropriate and effective action.

To take this to an extreme this could be like an institution ignoring guidance to use sign language for a deaf person and defending this by saying but we tried really hard by talking loudly and drawing pictures. It doesn't really cut it because although it may have been well meant it wasn't appropriate or effective.

[labman]

Re: Legal Interpretations

I have read around this at some length today, including other materials available to me. It is hard to see how any other interpretation could be placed on your situation. You mention specific sections. I assume you are also mentioning 15(1) Equality Act 2010, and see no reason why you cannot use all of Sections 20-22.

There is much talk of what is proportionate and what is not proportiinate, and this brings me back to the point I made last night, "to take such steps as it is reasonable to take to avoid the disadvantage."

Your case will rest on that terrible word 'reasonable' or as used elsewhere 'proportionate.' You need to demonstrate clearly and succinctly that the authority did not take such steps as it is reasonable to take.... Their actions, or more inactions were not proportionate and thus disadvantaged your stepson.

The Act is clear, the Equality Act is clear, I have not seen the actual plan, but this is where it will state what must be done immediately. The CoP will support this. You must show that things were not done.

I would suggest possibly the school did not do x. The Act states...... The Equality Act states ..... The Additional Needs Plan states x must be done and the CoP states ..........

This then leaves no real room for interpretation, it is there, succinctly, in black and white.

Hope this helps, but above all overcome that word 'reasonable' and prove they have not done all that is reasonable.

[Magrew]

Re: Legal Interpretations

If they only have to do 'what they can' till a review, that is a licence for unlimited non compliance.

I hope this wasn't under copyright Celestine, I used the whole phrase in my submission word for word. I will let you know if it does me any good. We are up on Friday.