• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Time limits to issue claim - failure to make reasonable adjsutments

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: Time limits to issue claim - failure to make reasonable adjsutments

    Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
    Just pre-empting the possibility is all! (& I did say I was joking :taunt
    My solicitor did say he sued the court for failing to make reasonable adjustments (though the case settled). :tinysmile_twink_t2:

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: Time limits to issue claim - failure to make reasonable adjsutments

      Originally posted by heisenberg View Post
      My solicitor did say he sued the court for failing to make reasonable adjustments (though the case settled). :tinysmile_twink_t2:
      Court caught in out of court, eh!



      (That works on so many levels, lol!)
      CAVEAT LECTOR

      This is only my opinion - "Opinions are made to be changed --or how is truth to be got at?" (Byron)

      You and I do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
      Cohen, Herb


      There is danger when a man throws his tongue into high gear before he
      gets his brain a-going.
      Phelps, C. C.


      "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
      The last words of John Sedgwick

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: Time limits to issue claim - failure to make reasonable adjsutments

        Originally posted by charitynjw View Post
        Court caught in out of court, eh!



        (That works on so many levels, lol!)

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: Time limits to issue claim - failure to make reasonable adjsutments

          "Even if you could show that receiving an outcome you did not want did in some way put you at a substantial disadvantage as a disabled person, I am not sure what adjustments you are suggesting that would have alleviated that substantial disadvantage, other than starting the process again in the hope that a different outcome would be reached."
          Even if you could show that your proposed PCP put you at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non-disabled person, what next?
          What reasonable adjustment should they have made?

          I can't imagine that going through the process again would have achieved anything but a duplication of all the previous responses. So, I wouldn't call that a reasonable adjustment.

          You wanted a full breakdown of the rationale used in every aspect of your complaint. But in the absence of any evidence that those dealing with your complaint deliberately withheld information or intentionally made their responses unclear and confusing; it's reasonable to assume that they did the best they could.

          Their best may be crap, in your opinion, and non-disabled complainers may agree.
          Where does that get you?
          It would be unreasonable to expect the organisation to acquire a fresh group of employees in the hope that you would like their responses better.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: Time limits to issue claim - failure to make reasonable adjsutments

            Even if you could show that your proposed PCP put you at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non-disabled person, what next?
            What reasonable adjustment should they have made?

            A full breakdown was all I asked and I don't think that was a lot to ask for. I envisage that would have taken them 10-15 minutes of their precious time.

            I can't imagine that going through the process again would have achieved anything but a duplication of all the previous responses. So, I wouldn't call that a reasonable adjustment.

            If they had provided a full breakdown I would have understood their position in regards to every aspect of my complaint. I would then have tailored my next complaint against the therapist more reasonably and sought to present the necessary evidence. It would be inapt to automatically infer the outcome would be the same. If the outcome would inevitably be the same there would be no point in the provision of allowing complainants to submit a complaint for a second and final time.

            You wanted a full breakdown of the rationale used in every aspect of your complaint. But in the absence of any evidence that those dealing with your complaint deliberately withheld information or intentionally made their responses unclear and confusing; it's reasonable to assume that they did the best they could.

            I argue that when I pointed out that there is scope for confusion they simply ignored my concerns. I would have expected any reasonable person in his/her professional capacity to address these valid concerns squarely. I maintain they did not do anything near the best they could as they simply regarded me as a 'nuisance' and gave me nor my disability any further consideration other than that. To that end, they have deliberately withheld information (let's also not forget about the fact that they have deliberately failed to comply with the CPR on more than once occasion).

            Their best may be crap, in your opinion, and non-disabled complainers may agree.
            Where does that get you?
            It would be unreasonable to expect the organisation to acquire a fresh group of employees in the hope that you would like their responses better.

            As above, I wasn't asking for a lot. Arguably a failure to make reasonable adjustments is providing a crap service. Have you noted the fact that the Professional Standards Authority found their decision-making to be crap? Perhaps the penny dropped hence the fact they were not forthcoming with any rationale or they were simply bias because I suffer from a severe mental impairment and the therapist does not (which would possibly amount to direct/indirect discrimination/aiding discrimination).
            Last edited by heisenberg; 14th March 2016, 10:03:AM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: Time limits to issue claim - failure to make reasonable adjsutments

              Originally posted by heisenberg View Post
              Even if you could show that your proposed PCP put you at a substantial disadvantage compared to a non-disabled person, what next?
              What reasonable adjustment should they have made?

              A full breakdown was all I asked and I don't think that was a lot to ask for. I envisage that would have taken them 10-15 minutes of their precious time.

              I can't imagine that going through the process again would have achieved anything but a duplication of all the previous responses. So, I wouldn't call that a reasonable adjustment.

              If they had provided a full breakdown I would have understood their position in regards to every aspect of my complaint. I would then have tailored my next complaint against the therapist more reasonably and sought to present the necessary evidence. It would be inapt to automatically infer the outcome would be the same. If the outcome would inevitably be the same there would be no point in the provision of allowing complainants to submit a complaint for a second and final time.

              You wanted a full breakdown of the rationale used in every aspect of your complaint. But in the absence of any evidence that those dealing with your complaint deliberately withheld information or intentionally made their responses unclear and confusing; it's reasonable to assume that they did the best they could.

              I argue that when I pointed out that there is scope for confusion they simply ignored my concerns. I would have expected any reasonable person in his/her professional capacity to address these valid concerns squarely. I maintain they did not do anything near the best they could as they simply regarded me as a 'nuisance' and gave me nor my disability any further consideration other than that. To that end, they have deliberately withheld information (let's also not forget about the fact that they have deliberately failed to comply with the CPR on more than once occasion).

              Their best may be crap, in your opinion, and non-disabled complainers may agree.
              Where does that get you?
              It would be unreasonable to expect the organisation to acquire a fresh group of employees in the hope that you would like their responses better.

              As above, I wasn't asking for a lot. Arguably a failure to make reasonable adjustments is providing a crap service. Have you noted the fact that the Professional Standards Authority found their decision-making to be crap? Perhaps the penny dropped hence the fact they were not forthcoming with any rationale or they were simply bias because I suffer from a severe mental impairment and the therapist does not (which would possibly amount to direct/indirect discrimination/aiding discrimination).
              The Court of Appeal have further addressed this point in Griffiths v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

              In their Judgment, the Court of Appeal rejected the Secretary of State’s contention that the appropriate comparator in a reasonable adjustments claim should be identified by applying the like-for-like test adopted by the House of Lords in Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm [2008] 1 AC 1399.

              Full Judgment here:

              http://www.oldsquare.co.uk/images/up...5_judgment.pdf

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: Time limits to issue claim - failure to make reasonable adjsutments

                Anyone know of any case law in respect to what constitutes a 'provision, criterion or practice'?

                I have found this case (see para. 18):

                http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co....aspx?i=ed13902

                However, that is an EAT Judgment which is seemingly not binding on a County Court.

                Comment

                View our Terms and Conditions

                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                Working...
                X