May 1998
I am sending this final letter to London Buildings and to a number of governmental, disability, and architectural groupings to make one final appeal to you to obey the law and act in a moral and ethical manner. I am asking other organisations to demonstrate their support for me by writing to London Buildings.
A year ago in April 1997, I purchased the leasehold on flat 805 in the Alaska Building -- the flat is on the ground floor and, apart from the entrance, the building is perfectly acceptable for a disabled person.
I suffer from cerebellar ataxia which is a progressive Motor Systems degenerative condition that affects my mobility, balance and co-ordination. I am registered with the government and receive disability living allowance (DLA) and I am also registered with Southwark Council as disabled.
When I viewed this flat, I pointed out to the estate agent that the entrance to the 800 building, which has three steps and no rail created a difficulty for my access. The agent told me that this would present no problem since it was a new building. Perhaps he was wrong, but I am still under the impression that there is a legal obligation on landlords to provide for disabled access in new buildings -- this is the central issue in this dispute and whether or not there is a legal obligation, it seems to me that there is a moral and ethical obligation on architects, builders and developers of new buildings to ensure the ease of access. The fact that many architects and developers do not seem to share this point of view is one of the reasons that I have decided to send this open letter because I strongly believe that this is a moral and ethical argument that needs to be made.
To try and say that adequate modifications to buildings to allow ease of access for disabled people is purely a professional and aesthetic question that is best left to the discretion of the so called professionals is, in my opinion, utterly absurd.
Think about it. If the same argument was used to justify racist activities it would be rejected out of hand. Aesthetic arguments cannot be deployed for the purposes of discriminating against people.
The only argument that can be sensibly deployed in this situation is cost. It is possible for a builder to state that modifications would cost too much. However, in the present situation the local Council has offered to put in a rail free of charge, so any argument based on cost cannot be used. In fact, the landlord appears to be making a stand on no grounds whatsoever.
I have corresponded with London Buildings many, many times over the last year and this open letter is my last attempt to make them act properly. I am asking the people and organisations that I am sending this letter to, to demonstrate their support for what I am asking by writing to me and to London Buildings.
Anyone who wishes to consult my bulky correspondence with London Buildings or my letters from Southwark Council is welcome to contact me.
I am asking people to state their support for the Council request to build a rail at the entrance to my building. Ideally you should write to London Buildings with a copy to me [addresses at end of letter].
Sincerely yours,
Richard Flint
The 1995 Disability Discrimination Act.
Clause 21. Part III is relevant here. It is titled "Duties of providers of services to make adjustments" and I would draw your attention to sub-section (2) which states:
"Where a physical feature (for example one arising from the design or construction of a building or the approach or access to premises) makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of such a service , it is the duty of the provider to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to --
(a) remove the feature;
(b) alter it so that it no longer has that effect;
(c) provides a reasonable means of avoiding the feature; or
(d) provides a reasonable alternative method of making the service in question available to disabled persons."
The Building Regulations [1991]
Taken from "Requirement-Interpretation P3 Disabled People" -- "reasonable provision shall be made for disabled people to gain access to the building". It further states that this requirement only applies to new buildings and those "substantially demolished to leave only external walls". Please note that the 800 building is entirely new and so this regulation applies in full.
Also please note that neither the building regulations nor the law make any distinction between commercial and residential property.
Addresses