Disability Q&A  permalink

Anyone had their credit/debit cards converted to signature?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 49 of 49
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by 1982welshman (U14272859) on Tuesday, 23rd February 2010

    Hi, when I ended up needing a wheelchair I had a problem with being unable to reach the Chip & Pin machines. Plus I wasn't happy with the standing person behind watching. Through my bank/credit card company they recommended having my cards changed to 'Revert to signature'. Basically now I (or someone else) puts my card into the chip and pin machine, then it comes up to remove card and a receipt is printed out (like it always used to be before chip and pin) I sign it, they check the signature and I'm away. If I want to withdraw cash from an ATM I do so in the normal way, put the card in, enter my pin and take out the cash.

    I've been using this now for around 2 years and never encountered any problems. Now Saturday when I was out I went to pay for some goods in Maplin and I'm refused. Ended up being told how my card was illegal and to pay another way. I was really taken aback, plus all my cards are signature so I had no other way to pay. The receipt was printed out and I tried explaining that I need to sign it but again I'm refused and told to leave.

    As the queue was now pretty long behind me they called the manager over. Yup they said the same thing apparently all my cards are illegal and I should leave the store.

    Has anyone else come up against this before and if so how am I supposed to pay for goods if I'm no longer allowed to use my debit/credit cards?

    Any help greatfully received, thanks.

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Tuesday, 23rd February 2010


    My guess is you got a couple of muppets who have never heard of Chip and Signature, I'd suggest a letter of complaint to Maplins head office.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 2.

    Posted by jaimelicious (U12745229) on Tuesday, 23rd February 2010

    it's probably a combo of poor staff training and the fact that most business insurance now (afaik) doesn't cover any purchases made with a signature regardless of the card.

    i know i always got told not to accept a signature because we wouldn't be insured for any losses.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Tuesday, 23rd February 2010

    >> i always got told not to accept a signature because we wouldn't be insured for any losses. <<

    I wonder if management knew they were potentially making themselves liable for a disability discrimination claim!

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Tuesday, 23rd February 2010

    Sorry to hear you have been treated so badly, quite frankly it's a disgrace. Unfortunately you can’t get away from shop manager DAs’ (first word dumb) who talk a lot of bottom gravy and throw their weight around. Maplin took forever to get the chip and pin system sorted out and the staff don’t have a clue. I had hassle with them over this some time back. My problem is the opposite, I can’t sign properly and had to show proof of identity. When they said your cards are illegal the manager implied that a law had been broken. Complete crap as chip and pin is an agreed method of payment and the signature system is still in operation for security purposes and it is still used for transactions abroad hence please check signature prompt. You are in the right, you have an arrangement with your card supplier regarding signature only and they had no good reason to refuse you in such a disgraceful and outrageous manner. The machine is linked to the authorisation centre so if there are any problems it will be rejected. Not sure about the retailer insurance side as the authorisation centre is asking for the signature and If there is any doubt the retailer should ask for additional ID which is not an unreasonable request. Make a formal complaint to Maplin and tell them you were singled out and humiliated by the staff manager of the shop before being thrown out giving the other customers the false impression that you are a trouble maker or worse. Good luck and when it's sorted out go back and make the manager squirm

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by 1982welshman (U14272859) on Tuesday, 23rd February 2010

    Its a crazy world. Which other way then is there to spend? I hate carrying cash and 9 times out of 10 all I carry are my cards.

    I have emailed a complaint in to head office just now. Be interesting to see what there response is if any. Chip & Pin has never been something I was keen on. Now if someone sees you typing in your pin (like the nosey parkers in supermarkets) they rob your card and head straight for the nearest cash machine. At least with Chip & Signature if they see you signing big deal, I'd have thought it was more of a deterrent not being able to empty out your cash just round the corner.

    All I've seen the last few weeks are people having cards stolen then not being reimbursed by their banks/credit card companies as they say they must have had the pin written down or been careless in the shop. They can't use that same excuse if you have to sign!

    I'll copy and paste any response from The muppets at Maplin. Quite tempted to email Visa & Mastercard and ask for something in writing saying how 100% legal they are. Then go back into Maplin armed with their replies and buy the cheapest thing in the shop with my card just to prove a point.

    Maybe a quick call to the local rag see if they want a discrimination story.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    >> All I've seen the last few weeks are people having cards stolen then not being reimbursed by their banks/credit card companies as they say they must have had the pin written down or been careless in the shop. They can't use that same excuse if you have to sign! <<

    They can't use that excuse at all! The FSA ruled last year that the banks have to prove negligence, not simply allege it.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Yvette (U12302253) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    I use a chip and signature card too.

    It is so useful at garages as one of the assistants comes out and takes my card, swipes it and brings it back with the receipt for me to sign.

    Very occasionally a swipe machine has a problem with my signature card and I have to suggest the assistant enters the number in manually, but I have never been refused.

    I really do hope you put in a heft complaint to Head Office about the way you were treated. And as David says, you have grounds for DD case against the company - which I hope you point out to them.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Crippled Monkey (U14337639) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    Hi I first had problems with Chip and pin when using petrol stations. My bank have issued me with two cards one chip and pin and one signature card for the same account. Now when I get petrol I tell the assistant that I wish to pay by signature card and they bring the reciept out to me on a clipboard for me to sign.
    I cannot use petrol station facilities as I cannot reach any of the equipment.

    Now I have no problems excepting if there is only one person serving and they refuse to come out and help. My big tip is to fill up with petrol long before you run out for example 1/4 of a tank left. Sounds obvious I know!!!



    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by stupidvetty (U14222516) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    where i work, we have never been told anythign about customers asking to sign. i know it exists, but that is cos i am disabled, but the manager of the shop is very discrimatory, and plain simple niave! i expect you would get a similar response if you wanted to sign there.

    it just shows, there is still a very very very long way to go to make us disabled people have equal opporunties. but then we all know that!

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010


    I did a bit of checking up on the net last night, basically making sure nothing has changed since Chip and Pin/Chip and Signature came in in 2006. One interesting article pointed out that the US hasn't converted yet, so card-reader machines world-wide are still in general capable of reading magnetic strips, and of course a swipe card has no pin and has to be signed for....

    So it's not just disabled people who may need to sign, but any American visitors (and probably some other nations, but Americans are the 80 stone gorilla of tourist spending) . I also suspect that honouring chip-and-signature cards may actually be a part of the retailer's contract with the credit card companies, but haven't been able to confirm that, though they are clearly instructed to accept such cards by the details on the www.chipandpin.co.uk... and www.retailersandcard... sites.

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    >> where i work, we have never been told anythign about customers asking to sign. <<

    It's not simply a case of the customer asking to sign, if you insert a chip-and-signature card into a card reader it should actually instruct you to get a signature and print off a receipt with space for one.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by jaimelicious (U12745229) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    but the retailers are *not insured*. they have no way of guaranteeing they're going to get the money for the item/service you're using.

    same with americans in the last place i worked, we just directed them to the nearest cash machine.

    yes, it's inconvenient, but frankly companies aren't going to risk losses - especially when they've been forced to shell out for (expensive!) new equipment already.

    the people you'd be better off shouting at, i think, are the insurers.

    or just pay in cash?

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    >> but the retailers are *not insured*. they have no way of guaranteeing they're going to get the money for the item/service you're using. <<

    Tough! Running a risk does not justify breaking the DDA.

    And are you sure they're uninsured? They are for signature authorised transactions on a chip-and-pin card, but is that necessarily true for chip-and-signature?

    >> yes, it's inconvenient, but frankly companies aren't going to risk losses - especially when they've been forced to shell out for (expensive!) new equipment already. <<

    What about the loss when a disabled person brings in the local press to cover taking action against them for breach of the DDA? Being seen to be discriminating bigots -- priceless....

    >> or just pay in cash? <<

    Why dance to the discriminator's tune when the law allows us to force them to dance to ours?

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by 1982welshman (U14272859) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    As I've stated earlier on in the thread I do not like using cash and very rarely carry any. A couple of quid for car parks in the car thats it.

    I'm certainly not struggling to load my powerchair into my car (which takes a good 20 minutes) drive a few miles to find a cash machine, spend another 20 minutes unloading it all again, go and struggle at the cash machine and hope I'm able to keep hold of the money withdrawn without dropping it. Go back to the car and reload (going to take more than 20 minutes by now I'm bushed) then drive back to Maplin and unload it all again then reload after. No way! I can unload and reload my powerchair twice and thats agony enough, even that results in me being bed ridden for the next few days.

    If my 100% legal bank/credit card company issued verify by signature cards aren't good enough for Maplin then stuff them!
    I'll go elsehwere.

    I find it hard to believe what is being said about the retailers not being insured. If that is indeed the case why do any retailers atall accept these cards then??? I purchased a car 2 years ago (pre powerchair days) that cost over £8,000. That was paid for in full using my Chip & Signature card. The Renault dealer never hesitated or batted an eye lid. The same goes for the Citroen Dealer when I paid a £4,000 advance payment for my motability vehicle last year. Again no problems using my chip and signature card.

    Can someone please tell me why car dealerships have no problems accepting this form of payment for thousands of pounds worth of goods yet a retailer with a transaction for £60 does? Surely if what Jaimelicious says is true then none of us with Chip & Signature cards should be able to use them anywhere? Yet this is not the case!

    I'm yet to see a sign saying Chip & Signature cards not accepted here. My understanding of Chip & Signature was that it had to be introduced as an alternative payment method for those unable/not happy to use Chip & Pin. With cheques already not being accepted in many places what alternative methods of payment are left?

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by ditchdwellers (U12199407) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    I have a small shop and use a chip and PIN machine.

    When I arranged with a card merchant provider to set up a chip & PIN account, I had to state which services I wanted. For example, I chose not to include 'card holder not present' transactions within my contract, as I rarely need to do mail order type transactions. This means that if I do accept a 'card holder not present' transaction, then I am not guaranteed payment if there is a problem processing the transaction. If I want to accept this type of transaction, with gura, then my monthly card merchant fee will be higher, to reflect the risk

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by limpinglimpet (U13868921) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    afaik, from the shop that I work in on a weekend, a retailer is insured if it is a 'genuine' chip and signature card (i.e. one where you insert the chip and it converts to signature) as this at the time was classed as being a reasonable adjustment. You have also formalised the arrangement with the bank.

    If the chip is broken/ does not have a chip/ you are an American the retailer does not have to accept the card using the swipe system. This is a local decision. Some retailers take the old fashined zap zap carbonated copies as some banks state that the magnetic strip can be cloned and an imprint of the card is the only way to prove that the card was in the hands of the retailer at the time. This prompts the retailer to phone for authorisation. This gives an opportunity for the bank to yay or nay it.

    As for the question as to why a car dealership accepts it. Probably staff training, and the fact that the motability scheme is a great carrot to move disability access forwards.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by ditchdwellers (U12199407) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    sorry - managed to hit Post message before I had finished!

    What I wanted to say was that the retailer pays a fee determined on the level of risk they are prepared to accept. As far as I am aware, chip and sign cards do not carry any extra charge for processing than chip and PIN (although I would need to check the fine print to confirm).

    My business insurance does not have a credit card processing element, and I would be surprised if any business insurance covered this. However, I can only really speak as a small business owner, and I am not sure how large companies deal with this.

    I hope this explains how it works a little. I cannot see any valid reason for not accepting chip and sign. It will be interesting to see what Maplins have to say.

    Rachel

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by Daringsupercaitriona (U14055735) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    In my work we are told to accept all cards wether they are chip and pin or signature.

    Personally i prefer to use the pin because i find it difficult to hold a pen.

    PS: its always a good idea to tell the shopworker that your card is signature.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by 1982welshman (U14272859) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    Good idea to have your own pen to hand too, I've lost count of the number of times the cashier says 'Oh, have you got a pen'. Even had the same thing said to me in Staples, the woman laughed when I told her no, but you sell the darn things lol

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by jaimelicious (U12745229) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    fair enough, i'm wrong. i apologise, i honestly thought the information i had was correct.

    something i noticed while out today which may be of use to the OP - most chip&pin readers are not permanently fixed to the holder thingy and can be removed and just on the cord thingy. might make it easier if you wanted to use chip&pin? i seem to recall that you disliked standing people behind you looking over your shoulder.

    and DavidG, please don't imply that i'm a bigot. i wasn't necessarily agreeing with the logic behind the retailer's actions, just stating what i believed it to be based on past experience.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by jaimelicious (U12745229) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    also - again, as far as i recall, although it's something i've been told every place i've worked that has accepted cards - the retailer doesn't *have* to accept payment by card, even if they have the facilities to do so.

    i've refused that before. usually, on the grounds that the card looks like a clone or doesn't appear to belong to the person using it and they can't produce appropriate identification to prove it is their card, or a bank's letter of authorisation and proof that they are the authorised person.

    t'other thing is, if i were the cashier and i was unsure, i'd say no. because a lot of companies will dock it out of your wages if you've been told not to take transactions not covered by the insurance and they lose money because you do.

    i know, the company sucks, and it's a breach of the dda. but working in a shop on minimum wage contributes heavily to most people's so-what reflex, and i really don't blame them.

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by limpinglimpet (U13868921) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    Medication fog...

    What I was supposed to say was that insurance is being confused with guaranteed payment I think.

    The case with the zap zap carbonated paper machine is a condition put on the store by the bank that says that in order to have guaranteed payment up to the floor limit we need proof that the card was in the store.

    Naturally if we suspected fraud, then we are insttructed to call the bank and report a code red/10 whatever we call it and the bak will confirm our decisions. I have to say that now you don't actually see the card as much as the customer puts the card in and takes it out of the machine it is difficult to spot any 70 year old males masquerading as Miss Jenna Smith.

    The problem that I detected with the OP was the fact that the shop told him, in error, was that he was committing an illegal act (i.e. fraud) by posessing these cards which is utter rubbish.

    Surely it is in the banks interest to make retailers aware of the Chip/ signature facility so they can continue to collect their commissions of 2-3%? I can see the use of the facility growing as time marches on.

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    >> and DavidG, please don't imply that i'm a bigot. <<

    I'm sorry if you thought I was calling you a bigot, I was directing that at any retailer that knowingly refuses to accept chip-and-signature.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Wednesday, 24th February 2010

    >> the retailer doesn't *have* to accept payment by card, even if they have the facilities to do so. <<

    'Doesn't have to' does not exclude 'in breach of the DDA'. They are at liberty to refuse a credit card transaction, but refusing a validly issued chip-and-signature card puts them in a very difficult position wrt the DDA, they'd need to provide an equivalent reasonable adjustment and I don't think there is one.

    >> if you've been told not to take transactions not covered by the insurance <<

    You still haven't convinced me this is the case for chip-and-signature as opposed to other signature transactions.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 25.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Thursday, 25th February 2010

    The use of the DDA only applies if it is because you are disabled not because you happen to be. The same excuse can be use on an able bodied person so the use is considered as equal. As a person who has witnessed racial and social prejudice from an early age I have seen the introduction of laws and organisations grow in order to fight those who are intolerant. However I have also seen the abuse of those laws and organisations good will that have been skewed in one direction borne frivolous actions by a growing number of people who have projected their own intolerance and hatred believing that it is their class, marital status in parentage, sex, race, sexual orientation or disability or in fact all is the cause when in fact it is because they are simply an a..hole or a liar or indeed both. So don’t use the DDA at the drop of a hat as it is a tool of last resort and it will end up loosing it’s potency and lead to subtler and more underhanded forms of discrimination toward the disabled. I for one don’t want to use the term “Is it cos I is disabled” I prefer to show them how unreasonable they are first and will only use it as a last resort if I believe that it has a baring. In the case at the Maplin shop it could have been anyone in the same position and we have to ask the question why didn’t the manager call the police and before you jump, I believe what happened because I have had dealings with Maplin staff. I think that the manager didn’t want customers to see a person in a wheelchair being escorted out by the police as it wouldn’t look good as people would see it as a disgrace. Would you use the DDA in this case, after all they are not being treated as an equal suspect. Sometimes being disabled can open some doors far quicker but it is balanced out by others being firmly shut and we have to pick which ones are worth knocking down

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Thursday, 25th February 2010

    >> The use of the DDA only applies if it is because you are disabled not because you happen to be. The same excuse can be use on an able bodied person so the use is considered as equal. <<

    You need to consider equality of outcome, not provision. If a non-disabled person is refused permission to sign for a purchase, then they can use chip-and-pin instead (or head off to a cash-machine if they're a tourist from a non chip-and-pin country), a disabled person using a chip-and-signature card is doing so because they cannot use chip-and-pin (and likely have difficulty accessing cash machines). Identical treatment leads to different outcomes. The DDA requires equality of outcome, many people mistakenly confuse this with equality of provision or identical treatment.

    >> don’t use the DDA at the drop of a hat <<

    So we shouldn't demand our rights if they are being denied to us? The DDA specifically provides for reasonable adjustments to ensure we have equality of outcome, chip-and-signature was designed by the banking industry as a reasonable adjustment because they recognised the discriminatory effect of chip-and-pin on some disabled people and the legal requirement on them to ensure that they were not disadvantaged due to their disability. Anyone who refuses to support chip-and-signature is in breach of the DDA unless they provide an alternative reasonable adjustment.

    >> I think that the manager didn’t want customers to see a person in a wheelchair being escorted out by the police<<

    On what grounds could he have asked for the police to escort the customer out? He was claiming something was illegal that wasn't. If he tried to call the police over that he could expect a fairly sharp discussion about the inadvisability of wasting police time.

    >> Would you use the DDA in this case <<

    Absolutely.

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Thursday, 25th February 2010

    With regard to the Police, I knew that someone would miss the point. I was trying to highlight the hypocrisy when making the statement people are reticent to call the police on disabled and likewise the police are unwilling to arrest. If it were an able bodied person with "illegal" cards they would have called the police at the drop of a hat. So the staff and manager are complete idiots because if they were illegal why didn't he call the Police, I would have regardless, but that's me.

    Before we digress too much, the fact is they did not call the police and they perpetrated a complete lie and embarrassed a customer but it could have applied to an able bodied person. Look at the facts and take the status of the person out of the scenario. The customer has a card with signature prompt setup (service available to all). The customer wishes to purchase an item with the card. The customer is informed that their card is illegal and is declined by the retailer. The customer is told to leave. The retailer has made a severe mistake and let’s face it has lost a customer more fool them. So please for the love of whatever god you worship tell me how the DDA applies in this transaction. The only aspect here is that it makes it worse for the retailer is that he did it to a disabled person and it makes poor PR if it were to get in the press.

    The only way the that the chip and pin be construed as being against rights disabled person is access. The machine and privacy to enter the number and view the amount due to the same degree as an able bodied person. The question is what is unreasonable and what isn't. The equipment is widely available for secure wireless and extended wire terminals that allow the user to enter their number with the same amount of privacy and to see the amount that has been entered. If the terminal cannot be easily viewed or accessible that would be the grounds for action.

    The signature aspect is a mute argument as it a service open to all and so is the refusal by retailers if you try to chase that chestnut under the DDA more fool you.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Thursday, 25th February 2010

    >> Look at the facts and take the status of the person out of the scenario. <<

    The status of the person as disabled is the core fact around which all else revolves, most particularly the applicability of the DDA. Chip-and-signature is very specifically a reasonable adjustment provided under the DDA to allow disabled people who require it equal access at the point of sale, and as a reasonable adjustment has a special status in law.

    >> please for the love of whatever god you worship tell me how the DDA applies in this transaction. <<

    The DDA requires any service provider (such as a shop) to ensure that in any case where their service is not equally accessible to a disabled person they either provide a reasonable adjustment when requested to remove the inequality, or provide a written explanation as to why the adjustment would not be reasonable. Chip-and-signature was very specifically created by the banking industry because they recognised that the use of chip-and-pin at point of sale was not equally accessible to some disabled people and that they were therefore required by law (i.e. the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and 2005) to provide a reasonable adjustment. The very existence of chip-and-signature confirms that DDA applies here.

    >> The only aspect here is that it makes it worse for the retailer is that he did it to a disabled person <<

    It definitely makes it worse, because while he can legally refuse to allow signature to anyone else, doing it to a disabled person who is holder of a chip-and-signature card places him in breach of the DDA unless he provides an alternative reasonable adjustment, which didn't happen.

    >> The question is what is unreasonable and what isn't. The equipment is widely available for secure wireless and extended wire terminals that allow the user to enter their number with the same amount of privacy and to see the amount that has been entered. <<

    Having a terminal that can be accessible to a person at wheelchair height or otherwise does not remove the need to accept chip-and-signature. Chip-and-signature is a reasonable adjustment covering a whole spectrum of access needs such as inability to remember number sequences, inability to use a keypad and so on. No terminal design is capable of removing the need to accept chip-and-signature.

    >> The signature aspect is a mute argument as it a service open to all and so is the refusal by retailers if you try to chase that chestnut under the DDA more fool you. <<

    Chip-and-signature is a reasonable adjustment specifically provided to disabled people as a reflection of the need to provide equal access at Point of Sale under a service provider's duties under DDA. Chip-and-signature cards should not be issued to anyone other than a disabled person and if they are do not hold the same status as a reasonable adjustment under law. Failure to accept a chip-and-signature card from a disabled customer without offering an equivalent reasonable adjustment would be a clear breach of the DDA for failure to provide a reasonable adjustment. Claiming that the chip-and-signature card is 'illegal' in front of witnesses would constitute harassment and open the staff to a claim of disability discrimination under the DDA.

    You seem to have a fairly strange and inaccurate understanding of what the Disability Discrimination Act actually says. I've actually fought a claim for the provision of reasonable adjustments and because of disability discrimination so I have no reason to doubt my interpretation.

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 29.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Friday, 26th February 2010

    Thank you for proving my point about pursuing a small issue at the drop of a hat. Plus you have shown discrimination yourself by marginalising the disabled by making disability the core of the issue when in all in tense and purposes it appears not. The law is there to bring equality and to combat prejudice and discrimination not to project it on every aspect of life. Why do you feel that it’s a disability thing when you should consider would they do that if I were able bodied that’s how you route out discrimination be objective not subjective

    Law requires certain burden of proof and you would need to prove that it was discriminatory action against a disabled individual alone, which in this case was obviously not as the person could very well have been an able bodied person. Just because a shop doesn’t have a drinking fountain doesn’t mean they are discriminating against the disabled it just means they don’t have that facility for all. The fact that the staff in the shop have failed on fundamental basics of customer service and failed to carry out due diligence in regard to verification and lied just goes to show that inept people can be made managers and are given levels of responsibility beyond their abilities and it just means it’s a crap shop. You also have to prove that the use of pin only is discrimination against the disabled and you have to prove that the vast majority of disable people who go into retail businesses including the person in question are incapable of using a pin number. It might work with someone with memory issues but then again it is a very dangerous area to tread as they may be deemed incapable. If there is someone who is totally disabled with full mental faculty then you revert back to the issue of the signature which in their case is impossible. The use of discrimination laws is for unreasonable and deliberate actions or policies against those it is used to protect. Not the fact that an action or policy is indiscriminate. What are you going to do take up a case against Bank ATMs because you can’t sign. What are you trying to prove, the incident is mute. The staff cocked up big style and a formal complaint has been made and shame on them, but it could have happened to anyone.

    I stated before I had an issue with Maplin before they switched to chip and pin. I couldn’t sign properly due to my disability and my signature differs quite a lot, but then again some people change their signature on a regular basis. I could have been refused but I wasn’t but it doesn’t mean to say they discriminated against me because of my disability. All I had to do was provide proof of ID because the person behind the counter used their head.

    Let’s put it into a different context that shows how ludicrous the argument is. A disabled man goes into the registry office and the registrar refuses to marry him. “Is it because I’m disabled” he asks angrily. The registrar looks at him strangely “you can’t marry a horse and that applies to anybody who comes through the door although I have heard that there is a farm church in Nevada who might”

    All you have done here is prove my point relating to access to the terminal which is the only real issue with chip and pin. If a disabled person cannot gain the same access and privacy as an able bodied person due to the position of the terminal then I would go for it whole heartedly as the president has already been set in a wide range of business’s with wireless or extendable terminals and with ATMs at a suitable height. As I stated before pick the doors you want to kick in not one that’s already open.
    You are exactly the type over reactionary that cocks up equality laws by going at every issue that it may possibly cover with a hammer causing a victimisation mentality in the people it is supposed to protect. To use a law as a weapon is a dangerous thing and unfortunately it creates a backlash of subtle and hidden prejudice which has eventually led to many of the underlying social problems we have today. Believe me I come from a family of over a dozen countries in the last 4 generations with 4 religions, all levels of class, colour and disabilities and when you see the victimisation card used unnecessarily it can make you cringe. Here is just one example, an excuse was made by a close blood relative that their child was being victimised by their teacher because they were from a mixed race marriage when in fact the kid was a little sod and their siblings had no trouble at the same school. All the child needed was to be brought into line and some more attention from the other parent. But unfortunately they were overly protected and it was always made out that it was someone else’s fault or it was a colour thing. The result, the child has been encouraged to believe that they are never at fault and they have been the victim in every confrontation and it spiralled out of control. What happened, they are now a troubled adult who is constantly in trouble with the law and has become institutionalised and they have a real chip on their shoulder and to this day cannot accept responsibility for their actions. What of the siblings you may ask, relatively normal lives and haven’t let their parent pass on the chip and just got on with life. By the way this is not the worse example I have witnessed and is just one of many.

    I think the point is clear that if a case like the signature issue even goes forward it limits the outrage factor of the next issue and so on and will undermine the potency of real fundamental issues that need to be addressed. So make an issue directly with Maplin and knock yourself out, go for the DDA at every opportunity and eventually people just won't bother to listen and you will end up talking to a wall and the law will have failed to eradicate the problems it was designed to do and those prejudices will just arise in more subtle and covert ways. You are trying very hard to make victims on very tenuous grounds. Look at it like this. If it were a woman would it be sexist? If it were a Muslim would it be racist? It would if we applied your thought process here. Please don’t read prejudice and discrimination into every aspect of life due to the introduction of the DDA because it is a slippery slope to unwarranted projected and self victimisation. The message that this will send is this "I am a victim of society and everyone is against me because of what I am" sound familiar doesn't it.

    The lesson here is when you keep using discrimination as a weapon you subjugate yourself to it. I for one will only use the DDA as a last resort not the first line of defence

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Friday, 26th February 2010

    >> Thank you for proving my point about pursuing a small issue at the drop of a hat. <<

    If it's such a small issue, why the massive posting? Personally I'm not willing to label equality and our right to it 'a small issue'.

    >> Plus you have shown discrimination yourself by marginalising the disabled by making disability the core of the issue when in all in tense and purposes it appears not. <<

    You can call the sky orange but that doesn't make it true. Do you understand the difference between equality of treatment and equality of outcome and why it is important to understanding the DDA? You seem to be denying it here.

    The treatment you claim is not discriminatory clearly leads to a disabled person being disadvantaged more than a non-disabled person and is therefore discriminatory.

    >> Law requires certain burden of proof and you would need to prove that it was discriminatory action against a disabled individual alone <<

    The law requires only that the outcome for the disabled person be less favourable than the outcome for a non-disabled person for a reasonable adjustment to be required, not that they be treated differently. Alleging the OP's chip-and-signature card was 'illegal' in front of witnesses is specific to the OP and opens the door for a claim of disability discrimination/harassment.

    >> You also have to prove that the use of pin only is discrimination against the disabled <<

    Chip-and-signature was specifically put in place as a reasonable adjustment for those disabled people who need it before the introduction of Chip-and-Pin because the banking industry (advised by various disability groups) recognised that a reasonable adjustment was required in order for the new system to meet the requirements of the DDA. We don't have to 'prove' anything because the whole system has been built around the recognition of that fact.

    >> you have to prove that the vast majority of disable people who go into retail businesses including the person in question are incapable of using a pin number <<

    No, I don't. Reasonable adjustments must be tailored to the individual where necessary. I had a whole bunch specific to my individual needs when I was working. I didn't have to prove that anyone needed them other than me. The vast majority of disabled people can use Chip-and-Pin, but some cannot and therefore Chip-and-Signature was required to meet the reasonable adjustment provisions of the DDA and was put in place before the system was launched.

    >> It might work with someone with memory issues but then again it is a very dangerous area to tread as they may be deemed incapable. If there is someone who is totally disabled with full mental faculty then you revert back to the issue of the signature which in their case is impossible. <<

    You seem to have a rather limited understanding of the range of disability out there. It's entirely possible to have an IQ well above the normal range and simultaneously a profound difficulty handling numbers, in fact the incidence of dyscalculia in some degree may be as high as 5% of the population (i.e. comparable to dyslexia). Equally many people with CP and the like may have difficulty with precise dexterity to the point of having distinct difficulty in using a keypad, while still being perfectly capable of using a pen. The concept of labelling any disabled person as 'incapable' is dangerous and outdated.

    >> The use of discrimination laws is for unreasonable and deliberate actions or policies against those it is used to protect. <<

    The purpose of the Disability Discrimination Act is to provide disabled people with the mechanisms to ensure that they are able to achieve equality of outcome with their peers in their daily life and to make discriminatory behaviour, whether intentional or not, illegal. Many non-disabled people do not recognise when they are being discriminatory, ill intent is not a requirement of the law and ignorance is not a defence, the only test to establish harassment is that the disabled person feel that they are being subject to harassment (this is a complex part of the act and five distinct forms of discrimination are recognised). Where a system or situation rather than an individual person discriminates against a disabled person achieving equality of outcome with their peers then the law provides for reasonable adjustments to be made and the organisation in question must either provide the adjustment or demonstrate why it is not reasonable.

    >> What are you going to do take up a case against Bank ATMs because you can’t sign. <<

    Chip-and-signature is a reasonable adjustment made against a shortfall in accessibilty at Point-Of-Sale, not ATMs. The reasonable adjustment for disabled people who can't use ATMs is the ability to withdraw cash in a bank. This isn't as good a reasonable adjustment as Chip-and-Signature is for PoS, but providing a signature facility on an ATM fails the test of reasonability as it is complex and costly to provide that capability in a machine, while it's very simple to provide it at point-of-sale via the checkout operator.

    >> Look at it like this. If it were a woman would it be sexist? If it were a Muslim would it be racist? It would if we applied your thought process here. <<

    As I have stated repeatedly, you are looking at equality of treatment whereas the law requires you to look at equality of outcome. There is a difference in outcome for a disabled person who requires chip-and-signature because they are more seriously inconvenienced than a person who can use chip-and-pin. Chip-and-signature only exists because the banks realised that this was the case.

    >> What are you trying to prove <<

    I'm trying to ensure that no-one is misled into accepting anything less than their rights by your misunderstanding of the intent and content of the DDA.

    >> I for one will only use the DDA as a last resort <<

    Every time someone uses a chip-and-signature card, or a ramp, or gets a bill in braille or has a personal assistant admitted free or whatever, they're using the DDA. The DDA creates a situation in which I can work despite my disability by allowing me to ask for the reasonable adjustments I need to allow me to function. No reasonable adjustments, no job. Each disabled person uses the DDA on a daily basis.

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Friday, 26th February 2010

    Please by all means rant on because all you are doing is proving my point of using a hammer to squash a pea. The reason the posting is getting so big is because of us.

    You’re right about the sky and I suggest you stop painting it orange, it's not a good look. You have a new weapon to use and you just keep stabbing... If there are enough people like you around it will defeat the object of the act because you have lost sight of what it is there for. To combat and out seek out discrimination not some frivolous use of it that could potentially delay more serious issues from getting to the fore. You take on the big issues first and the rest will fall into line. The systems out there cannot be all things to all. That’s why urinals aren’t practical for women so we have toilet bowels that suits all. Reasonable compromise is how to progress as dictation under law causes more problems than it resolves especially when taken out of context. At the end of the day it's down to interpretation and when it comes to the crunch it'll probably be an able bodied judge who decides.

    If you have noticed I haven’t disputed the law itself it is your interpretation so it’s pointless. The burden of proof was the person being treated that way because they were disabled or just that the staff were inept. The question can be asked what if they were black, white, straight, gay, male, female, fat thin, old, young, English speaking or not. Would they have been treated any different my thoughts are it doesn’t matter who or what you are you can’t escape incompetence. But for some reason you have it in you head it’s a disability thing and that’s projection of you own underlying insecurities and prejudices.

    I don't think as an able bodied or disabled person, I think it as what is possible within given circumstances, but you can't. The issue of equal rights has been distorted into some being made more equal than others and at what cost. Another example, someone who is an asylum seeker without status gets a house and their kids in school but at the cost to whom. Why not, they are living here they have the right to live a decent life but then again it has displaced all those behind who may have been waiting far longer but because they do not fall within a particular criteria or can be exempted from a law and they can be overlooked or pushed to one side. Who gets the flak for the issue, the rights campaigner, no, the asylum seeker and their kids are the ones who will be the focus of anger.

    Why don't you take up the issue of toilet paper, the top and bottom shelves in supermarkets, the size of a pens, apples and bananas or a crack in the pavement that is a couple of mils too big. You can put your argument into all of these to the same degree as they could all fall within your interpretation, that's my point. You have ambulance chaser written all over you and I suggest you take up a position with an insurance assessor as you will go far. The DDA isn't a Willy Wonker gold ticket for more than equal rights. I think the act is better used in the selection of candidates for parliament or the rights of people to get better medical treatment, the right for better housing, education, travel, jobs and access. But there is one thing that always causes the problem what is considered as reasonable as quite frankly you are not. The existing C&P system works if mobile terminals are used for signature and pin use and you cannot supply a system that works for all as it is the most secure system widely available allowing access to a larger number of people. What happened before for the disabled who couldn’t sign. What happens now if a shop doesn’t have a pen and turns you away. Make a case out of it, you can if you take the law literally which you seem to do with zeal. But at the end of the day it would have affected an able bodied person to the same degree and would fail, that’s my point discrimination means not being treated on equal terms.

    Get out of this mindset you have that equal means pandering to your every need as it is not. It means being treated equal terms without bias and to get the same level of respect and treatment as everyone else which includes being subject to shoddy work and inept staff. It doesn’t make it a disability thing and like everyone else you can complain. I get the distinct feeling that you feel that it is being disabled that is first and a being a person second. I believe I am a person who happens to have disabilities. Are you are one of the outraged when an able bodied person uses a disabled toilet regardless of the fact the it is the only one working in the building? I get the feeling you may be. You can have the last word if you like but as far as I’m concerned you have lost sight of what the law is for and you are just talking to a wall. I'm bored with this now and I suggest that you stop looking for discrimination demons in every aspect of life and get over it as quckly as possible.

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 32.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 33.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 33.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Friday, 26th February 2010

    before you jump moderator rectum intestium just means intenstinal passage

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Friday, 26th February 2010

    Hmm, seems like the moderator went beserk!

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Friday, 26th February 2010

    agree to disagree and leave it at that

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by jaimelicious (U12745229) on Saturday, 27th February 2010

    erg... equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome again.

    personally, i find that most people can't tell the difference (worries me, it's pretty clear!) and from a personal perspective, i find legislating for equality of outcome, well... the *best* thing i can say about it is that it is philosophically, sociologically and imo morally repulsive.

    Report message39

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Saturday, 27th February 2010

    >> , i find legislating for equality of outcome, well... the *best* thing i can say about it is that it is philosophically, sociologically and imo morally repulsive. <<

    Why? I'd say that having to legislate to enforce it, rather than it happen by default, is philosophically, sociologically and morally repulsive.

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by jaimelicious (U12745229) on Saturday, 27th February 2010

    legislating for equality of outcome discounts the possibility of acheiveing on merit.

    ie, if you're talking about equality of outcome - that then means the same result for smart, kind, hardworking people as it does for lazy, stupid, cruel ones. why should anyone receive something simply because others have it?

    personally, i'd like a meritocratic society, where outcomes are determined by skill and effort, not some arbitrary notion that everything should be 'fair'.

    also, it's my belief and my subjective experience that any rule based on enforcing equality of outcome removes the need to *try*. to attempt to better oneself, make the best effort you can, to strive. instead, people simply rely on being handed things they have not earned.

    take, for example, a situation that arose when i was at uni. a student had dyslexia, and asked for and was given extra time in exams.

    they failed - because the exam paper they turned in was unreadable. no-one in the dept. could read what had been written, so no marks were given.

    the student was eventually awarded a pass grade on the exam after complaining of 'discrimination'.

    1. the student had the opportunity to ask for a scribe or laptop but did not.
    2. the university made every effort to decipher the paper.
    3. the student refused to retake the exam with appropriate support.

    it's the last one that makes me sick. the student never demonstrated sufficient competence for the award, but because they were entitled to 'equality of outcome', they didn't have to.

    if we're talking about equality of outcomes - most of my peers own a house, have a steady income and a nice lifestyle. why am i not entitled to an equal outcome?

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 41.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Sunday, 28th February 2010

    >> if you're talking about equality of outcome - that then means the same result for smart, kind, hardworking people as it does for lazy, stupid, cruel ones. <<

    Not at all. And I object to your implication that anyone who needs a reasonable adjustment is lazy, stupid and cruel.

    >> personally, i'd like a meritocratic society, where outcomes are determined by skill and effort, not some arbitrary notion that everything should be 'fair'. <<

    Let me illustrate the flaw in your argument from my personal situation. Suppose an employer gives all employees identical chairs and desks, that's equality of treatment and 'fair'. But if you sit me and someone of slightly lower skills in those chairs then he is going to achieve far more than I do. Within a few minutes I'll be squirming in discomfort and my concentration will fall behind his, within an hour or so I'll be having to take longer and longer breaks away from the chair (I'm supposed to take them every 15 minutes anyway), the level of pain will have risen to acute discomfort and I won't be able to concentrate worth a damn. By the afternoon I'll be in so much discomfort I'll be lying on the floor and gritting my teeth against the pain, because it feels like I'm being impaled, and I won't be producing anything at all. So when it comes to assessing our performance he will have achieved far more than I will, and will see that reflected come pay review time in a better rise than me, assuming that by some miracle I've actually managed to keep my job by actually being rather good at it and achieving a lot in the time where I can work to some degree.

    Now who is actually putting in more effort? My colleague who coasts through the day, or me, who has to fight for every second of semi-productive time?

    But we had the same provision, so obviously everything was 'fair'.

    On the other hand, if our employer makes some effort towards equality of outcome, and provides him with a standard chair, but me with a couple of ergonically fitted specials so that I can swap between them as appropriate, then maybe I'll be able to keep working for most of the day, maybe I'll only end up writhing in the floor a couple of times a week, maybe the differences in pay rises will be more subtle, maybe it'll take years before I realise how much I'm falling behind.

    Your 'meritocracy' condemns people like me to the dole queue, equality of outcome provides us a slight chance to compete in the labour market.

    >> it's my belief and my subjective experience that any rule based on enforcing equality of outcome removes the need to *try* <<

    So I wasn't trying when I reduced myself to lying in agony on the floor to try and get the job done? I'll refrain from saying what I think of your belief.

    >> a student had dyslexia, and asked for and was given extra time in exams.

    they failed - because the exam paper they turned in was unreadable. no-one in the dept. could read what had been written, so no marks were given.

    the student was eventually awarded a pass grade on the exam after complaining of 'discrimination'. <<

    In my view even the pass grade is discrimination. If the department couldn't read her writing they should have either insisted on a reasonable adjustment that allowed them to, or, if none could be provided, asked her to sit down with a secretary and/or lecturer and transcribe her answers later. Not everyone types as quickly as they write, using a scribe is alien to most people, your suggested reasonable adjustments (themselves there to provide equality of outcome) may not have seemed so reasonable from her position.

    >> it's the last one that makes me sick. the student never demonstrated sufficient competence for the award, but because they were entitled to 'equality of outcome', they didn't have to. <<

    But what if her performance was good enough for a first? Who has been unfairly disadvantaged? Her competence is there on paper to judge, the department are the ones refusing to make the effort to have it transcribed.

    Speaking as someone who has terrible handwriting as a consequence of their disability, and who actually had the issue of exams and handwriting raised, I would choose a keyboard for any exam nowadays, but at the time I did my O and A levels I would not have, nor could I have used a scribe effectively and even at finals the utility of a keyboard vs handwriting would have been questionable. The same issue that gives me poor handwriting also limits my keyboarding skills, it took me a decade of daily keyboard use to become a reasonably fast typist and I will never be able to touch-type. It's entirely possible that I lost marks through handwriting legibility, but at that time the right to insist on equality of outcome didn't exist.

    And to go back to the example the mods bizarrely obliterated the other day, the EHRC's guidance to best practice for employers, the standard against which they will be judged in an Employment Tribunal, is 168 pages stuffed full of example reasonable adjustments that should be put in place to ensure equality of outcome for disabled employees in the appropriate situation. Unfair advantages like not sitting an employee with epilepsy under the flickering light from a fan, or providing paperwork in braille for an SVI employee.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Sunday, 28th February 2010

    I promised my self I wouldn’t come back to the subject but we have to consider what has to be done to make the system equal and what is feasible and in whose interest.

    For the visually and hearing impaired by all rights the system should print out tickets in brail but then again so should all receipts but that would require just about every till and terminal being changed. What would be more effective would be mobile translators and who needs to supply them. Is it feasible for every shop and business to carry one or give one to each individual.

    The systems out there are designed to alleviate fraud and which is the best way to tackle it and ironically one of the biggest system operators is Atos but that’s another story.

    We still go back to what is reasonable and what can be refused which is specifically discriminatory or is it a case of indiscriminate policies that affect all because the decision will be based on that. If there are mass redundancies within a firm but a disabled person is made redundant because the position is no longer viable or required or the role can be combined into another who happens to be able bodied. We need to ask could the disabled person carry out the combined job to the same degree or does not have the skills base or training to do it. For me it would be done on merit and the remaining job would go to the best qualified and capable. However campaigners would demand that the disabled person was not qualified to the same degree that they should be trained to carry out that job in order to maintain a balance of disabled within a company and they would use the DDA to do this. This is what I consider as positive discrimination and using the law to achieve a point but at the same time diminishing the persons standing within the company as it could be construed that they only have the position due to their condition not ability and could loos the respect of colleagues. This is the backlash that I have been talking about and I agree jaimielicious that it should be done on merit.

    However we need to look at why the disabled person wasn’t qualified was it by choice or were they blocked and if the latter address the cause and ensure that the next person be given equal access to education or training.

    Going back to the beginning of this subject we have to look at a wider range of examples to be objective in the approach and as I have previously mentioned it comes down to equal access to facilities at any given time. I’ll to use a less contentious examples this time.

    There is a restaurant that has one toilet and it is adapted for disabled and able bodied alike and complies to regs. They change to a take away and remove in house eating facilities. The customer wants to use the toilet and the owner refuses as it is for personnel only keeping in mind that they have rights to refuse and let’s for arguments sake say it is insurance reasons.

    A garage only takes chip and pin on automated pumps and has a terminal at car/wheelchair height and has an attendant to check breakdowns alone or to retrieve stuck card between 7am and 6pm but the garage is open 24hrs a day.

    An automated dispensing machine only takes cards for payment and you can only use you pin number.

    A shop has made a policy to take cash or payment by card with pin as forms of payment and no longer take cheques or signed credit card slips.

    You go to the market and the stall holder only takes cash and no £50 notes

    All these policies relating to access and forms of payment are indiscriminate but in the case of the shop they offer an alternative form of payment giving an option to the customer.

    Now we have to define how any of these are discriminatory as opposed to indiscriminate and it is a policy that deprives a group of equal access. Each example excludes access to facilities or method of payment but we have to prove deliberate discrimination. The exact interpretation of the law would indicate that the action of refusal or lack of facility that discrimination may apply. However when the policies fall within a number of laws and is indiscriminate, the claim would be rejected.

    In the case of Welshman he was given the alternative method of payment in cash which in his case was inconvenient as he would have had to find an ATM to withdraw the cash but it would apply to anyone else. We have to ask ourselves would an able bodied person be in the same position and in all tense and purposes they would. Is there a case for incompetence and slander, yes and it would apply to anyone else in the same position. Unfortunately you can’t get away from stupidity and inept, ill-informed staff.

    Ironically the fact that he is disabled makes it all the more disgraceful in the publics’ eye. However, there is one thing that I know is that most able bodied people don’t like anyone picking on someone in a wheelchair or with limited capability no matter how patronising it is or sounds, but I have witnessed it and seen the supposed victim tell the well intended Samaritan to go forth and multiply because they can take care of themselves, but then again the guy is fiercely independent and will roll in first when something kicks off with stick in hand, hence the nickname Lancelot. We also had a Skippy, Pegs, Modoc and McWheeze all due to our attributes and disabilities but we were confortable with ourselves within that group but should anyone else call us by those names, especially ables, you would see fireworks.

    So we have to ask ourselves do we need to deal with issues that cause real problems or do we fight every perceived threat or refusal and to what cost.

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Sunday, 28th February 2010

    Finally the point of equality is being treated as an equal and that's all I’ve ever wanted. Unfortunately there have been plenty of people along the who feel that they have to fight for you hen it isn’t require or wanted and just project their feeling of injustice on to you.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Monday, 1st March 2010

    >> we have to prove deliberate discrimination <<

    No, all we need is to be treated less favourably in order to legitimately request a reasonable adjustment. The service provider then has the choice to provide the adjustment or an explanation as to why it is not reasonable. If no agreement is possible then the matter can be taken into legal proceedings, but that is far from the first step in the process and is always subject to the test of reasonableness.

    >> So we have to ask ourselves do we need to deal with issues that cause real problems or do we fight every perceived threat or refusal and to what cost. <<

    The DDA is designed to place requirements on service providers and employers anywhere that a disabled person is involved and at all times. By only looking at it as a tool for legal action you are missing 99.9% of the way it contributes to equality. The DDA's principal value is in mandating the creation of reasonable adjustments to ensure equality of outcome for us and in the vast majority of cases is succeeds, the few cases that proceed into legal action reflect those incidents where people have deliberately refused to provide us with our rights, they are by definition the cases we need to fight and win if we are to be treated as truly equal.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 45.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Monday, 1st March 2010

    Reiterating the law does not prove a breach it just proves that you know the law. To be treated less favourably needs a comparison to prove inequality. In all the examples all customers would have been treated in the same way including Welshman. The execution of the Law is open to interpretation by the enforcers or compliance officers and the use of the law as a threat is bringing an aggressive stance into the equation and therefore a de facto form of intimidation and it becomes the problem it is supposed to combat.

    We both agree that it is subject to being within reason but it the problem is what one person considers reasonable can differ substantially from another. . There will no doubt be an emergence of specialist companies that will pursue complaints for compensation and will encourage people to do so and consequently gain from this abuse. With the compensation culture that we have become accustomed to is beginning to diminish as it has been going on for far too long and the insurers are fighting back and with our own insurance premiums being some of the highest in Europe and we are realising that we end up paying for it in the long term. There is a growing number of companies cashing in on the law from training to the use of the phrase “are you DDA compliant” when they want to shift a product or service which may not be necessary.

    As I have stated the equality and discrimination laws have all been hijacked since the introduction and it is not a question of knowing the law but using it wisely for the benefit of all. I have also stated I don’t want to see is over zealous or frivolous use which defeats the intention of the law but the process has already begun.

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by DavidG (U2600889) on Monday, 1st March 2010

    >> Reiterating the law does not prove a breach it just proves that you know the law. <<

    The problem is that you apparently don't, so I have to keep repeating what the law really says.

    >> In all the examples all customers would have been treated in the same way <<

    Which is irrelevant. As I said, until you understand what the law really says and intends I'll need to keep repeating it and ignoring examples that don't show what you think they show.

    >> The execution of the Law is open to interpretation by the enforcers or compliance officers <<

    As guided by the letter of the law, the best practise documents which have a quasi-legal status and existing case and common law. And the law was specifically designed (a point many of us believe is a fundamental flaw) to make individual disabled people the enforcers in the majority of instances.

    >> the use of the law as a threat is bringing an aggressive stance into the equation <<

    The DDA grants us rights people in the street do not realise we have. It is sometimes necessary to remind them that they have a legal obligation to at least consider providing what we are asking for. I was involved in an incident in December, discussed here: www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/m... which was an epic failure of DDA reasonableness by a JCP contractor, yet I was also required under threat of having my benefits suspended to attend further interviews with them. Given that they had wrecked my health for a week with their existing seating and had apparently little idea of what was legally required of them, I felt it entirely appropriate to remind them of their DDA responsibilities by stating that I was asking for a reasonable adjustment under the DDA when saying I needed them to provide adjustable seating. As it happened I didn't need to take it further, but this was a situation in which I was at a considerable disadvantage in my apparent ability to control the situation, until I asserted my DDA rights.

    >> the problem is what one person considers reasonable can differ substantially from another <<

    Which is the reason we have the right to seek a legal judgement in the matter (and also why an ACAS arbitration phase has been built in).

    >> There will no doubt be an emergence of specialist companies that will pursue complaints for compensation and will encourage people to do so and consequently gain from this abuse. <<

    They can only win the case if it passes the judgement of reasonableness. The highest ever payment in an access case is £6,500, hardly enough to justify an ambulance chaser getting out of bed in the morning. and that had to be fought all the way to the Court of Appeal.

    If a case forces someone to meet the legal obligations on them, then I'm struggling to see how this can be considered abuse.

    >> There is a growing number of companies cashing in on the law from training to the use of the phrase “are you DDA compliant” <<

    What exactly is the problem in providing a company with an access audit? Isn't it the appropriate thing to do for any reasonable company, recognising that they may lack the perspective to see access issues?

    >> As I have stated the equality and discrimination laws have all been hijacked <<

    They haven't been hijacked, you just didn't understand their intention and are objecting to the fact that they are being used as designed. In fact the Minister for Disabled People stated in the aftermath of the Court of Appeal's ruling on RBS v Allen that he wanted disabled people to bring many more cases of that kind.

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Stranded (U14341382) on Monday, 1st March 2010

    The other problem is when people take the evidence and or statement and present it incomplete and out of context giving a false or skewed impression of the facts in hand. One of the main issues we have today I hasten to add. As I have said it is down to an individual’s interpretation, but then again that has always been the problem since the first laws and religious texts were written down in fact even by word of mouth. Individuals or groups warp those well intentioned teachings and rules into tools of control, intimidation, manipulation and power which will inevitably lead to conflict. I say if someone has to keep bashing the book and dictating it chapter and verse to others on a continual basis with their own interpretation it means that they have a deep down desire to control and manipulate others but cannot do it on their own merit or ability and use it as protection for their own ends.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by Alex Simpson (U14393640) on Sunday, 21st March 2010

    HI, just to clarify a few points. I am a retailer who uses Streamline and they sent out a letter last year with a simple warning not to refuse a card that is not Chip & Pin or you will leave yourselves open to the descrimination act. None Chip & Pin card holders can insist proof of refusal that will leave the retailer open to prosecution based on the fact they refused the card holder based on them not having a Chip & Pin card. The letter was via Visa who state that refusal by an authorised retailer who accepts Visa or may desplay the Visa sign/logo is likely to result in a discrimination case. The retailer as before is obliged to ask for ID that carries a signature and this should give protection to both parties (although I would take a copy of the ID given). As for no protection with Debit cards for the retailer, this is incorrect but you must ask for ID that carries a signature and you will be covered up to the guaranteed amount shown on the card. My Debit card carries a £100 guarantee. Obviously over the phone or internet sales are only protected if shipped and signed for at the registered billing address for the card used.

    Report message49

Back to top

About this Board

The Ouch! messageboard has now closed. Messages you have posted will remain archived.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

To continue the conversation visit Ouch's blog (bbc.co.uk/ouch) - now part of BBC News. There you'll find our podcast, regular blog entries and articles, community events, and links to where you can find us on Facebook and Twitter.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Live community panel

Our blog is the main place to go for all things Ouch! Find info, comment, articles and great disability content on the web via us.

Mat and Liz
Listen to our regular razor sharp talk show online, or subscribe to it as a podcast. Spread the word: it's where disability and reality almost collide.

More from the BBC

BBC Sport

Disability Sport

All the latest news from the paralympics.

Peter White

In Touch

News and views for people who are blind or partially sighted.

BBC Radio 4

You & Yours

Weekdays 12.40pm. Radio 4's consumer affairs programme.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.