Tweet
Royal Bank of Scotland loses landmark wheelchair access appeal
The Royal Bank of Scotland has been ordered to carry out £200,000 of work to improve wheelchair access at one of its branches after senior judges ruled that it had breached disability laws.
In a test case three Court of Appeal judges ruled that the bank had failed to cater for the needs of a disabled teenager, David Allen, 18, who was awarded £6,500 damages.
Mr Allen, who has muscular dystrophy, took legal action after RBS failed to install wheelchair access at its Church Street branch in Sheffield, where he is studying creative writing at the city’s Hallam University.
Judges dismissed the bank’s appeal and ordered it to carry out the necessary access work, which will cost an estimated £200,000.
They also ordered the bank to pay Mr Allen’s legal costs and refused permission to take the case to the Supreme Court.
The case was the first to test the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act in relation to services such as bank facilities.
The bank argued that Mr Allen could use internet banking facilities. He said that he wanted a service in which he could speak to banking staff over the counter.
Lord Justice Wall said in the ruling that Mr Allen could not access the counter facilities at the bank and a duty “plainly thereby arose” under the Act.
He said that the bank could have taken action to provide access for those suffering from disabilities.
“The bank did not take those steps, giving as its reason not the disproportionate cost of carrying out the work, but simply the fact that it would lose the use of an interview room.”
The Sheffield branch concerned is a 19th-century listed building where access to all entrances is by flights of stone steps.
Judge John Dowse ruled at Sheffield County Court in January that the bank had breached the disability Act and Lord Justice Wall upheld his ruling.
Richard Lissack QC, for RBS, argued at the Court of Appeal that the judge had got it wrong in relation to the part of the Act concerning the duty of service providers to make reasonable adjustments to help the disabled.
He told Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Hughes that the bank was “acutely conscious” of the fact that Mr Allen was not well treated and that it was “extremely sorry”.
“That apology was made at trial and the wrong done to [Mr Allen] was recognised by the bank in correspondence long before that.”
He told the judges that the case provided the first occasion in which an appeal court — and maybe any court — had considered the application of the Act to the provision of services that did not require attendance and, in particular, the question of reasonable adjustment in respect of such services.
“It raises important issues of far wider application than just to this case, this bank, or the banking sector as a whole.”
RBS said that it had complied with the Disability Rights Commission’s code of practice and arranged access to three other branches, as well as offering Mr Allen the use of telephone or internet banking services.
Robin Allen QC, for Mr Allen, said that the case was about the fact that the student wanted to have banking facilities as close as possible, like any ordinary person.
He told the judges that Mr Allen did not open an internet account as he did not want that kind of a service. He wanted the convenience of counter services and a relationship that enabled him to speak about banking issues.
Mr Allen said: “I’m glad the bank finally had to apologise in court and acknowledge they treated me badly. “But I am still very disappointed that RBS, whom I have banked with since I was 10, when I was still able to walk, would not willingly comply with the Disability Discrimination Act and provide wheelchair access which not only I, but many of their other customers with disabilities need.
“They just failed to understand anything about the need for privacy and dignity.”
The Royal Bank of Scotland has been ordered to carry out £200,000 of work to improve wheelchair access at one of its branches after senior judges ruled that it had breached disability laws.
In a test case three Court of Appeal judges ruled that the bank had failed to cater for the needs of a disabled teenager, David Allen, 18, who was awarded £6,500 damages.
Mr Allen, who has muscular dystrophy, took legal action after RBS failed to install wheelchair access at its Church Street branch in Sheffield, where he is studying creative writing at the city’s Hallam University.
Judges dismissed the bank’s appeal and ordered it to carry out the necessary access work, which will cost an estimated £200,000.
They also ordered the bank to pay Mr Allen’s legal costs and refused permission to take the case to the Supreme Court.
The case was the first to test the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act in relation to services such as bank facilities.
The bank argued that Mr Allen could use internet banking facilities. He said that he wanted a service in which he could speak to banking staff over the counter.
Lord Justice Wall said in the ruling that Mr Allen could not access the counter facilities at the bank and a duty “plainly thereby arose” under the Act.
He said that the bank could have taken action to provide access for those suffering from disabilities.
“The bank did not take those steps, giving as its reason not the disproportionate cost of carrying out the work, but simply the fact that it would lose the use of an interview room.”
The Sheffield branch concerned is a 19th-century listed building where access to all entrances is by flights of stone steps.
Judge John Dowse ruled at Sheffield County Court in January that the bank had breached the disability Act and Lord Justice Wall upheld his ruling.
Richard Lissack QC, for RBS, argued at the Court of Appeal that the judge had got it wrong in relation to the part of the Act concerning the duty of service providers to make reasonable adjustments to help the disabled.
He told Lord Justice Dyson, Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Hughes that the bank was “acutely conscious” of the fact that Mr Allen was not well treated and that it was “extremely sorry”.
“That apology was made at trial and the wrong done to [Mr Allen] was recognised by the bank in correspondence long before that.”
He told the judges that the case provided the first occasion in which an appeal court — and maybe any court — had considered the application of the Act to the provision of services that did not require attendance and, in particular, the question of reasonable adjustment in respect of such services.
“It raises important issues of far wider application than just to this case, this bank, or the banking sector as a whole.”
RBS said that it had complied with the Disability Rights Commission’s code of practice and arranged access to three other branches, as well as offering Mr Allen the use of telephone or internet banking services.
Robin Allen QC, for Mr Allen, said that the case was about the fact that the student wanted to have banking facilities as close as possible, like any ordinary person.
He told the judges that Mr Allen did not open an internet account as he did not want that kind of a service. He wanted the convenience of counter services and a relationship that enabled him to speak about banking issues.
Mr Allen said: “I’m glad the bank finally had to apologise in court and acknowledge they treated me badly. “But I am still very disappointed that RBS, whom I have banked with since I was 10, when I was still able to walk, would not willingly comply with the Disability Discrimination Act and provide wheelchair access which not only I, but many of their other customers with disabilities need.
“They just failed to understand anything about the need for privacy and dignity.”
Comment