Regarding disabled parking

Only if it is work related. No one has the right to insist people spend their own time , disabled or not, with anyone they don’t want to! If you work somewhere and suggest a drink after work with someone, it doesn’t mean you have to ask everyone!

It is actually possible to be both disabled and a bit of a cunt. It's good that people are asking probing questions because it will likely save the company a lot of money by bringing in HR. They may get an amicable solution nailed down.

Or if Linda has her own agenda it will nip it in the bud.

And either Lynda or Sue could arrive one day when the user of the other disabled bay was doing half a day and use that space instead... or could arrive and find that one of the other companies has hired a new worker who requires a disabled Bay and they've missed out...

In fact Bay 1 appears to also suit Sue's needs but they aren't going to the other company and demanding they explain how their BB holder is "more entitled" to the space than Sue and if not then they must use the bay Sue now has to use because Sue needs it more. Presumably because they know that would be unreasonable. Yet its reasonable to demand Lynda explains herself?

Lynda is no longer invited on work nights out and has got a worsening condition. What Lynda could previously do regardingly toilets is irrelevant.

This is the Lynda who goes before she needs to in case she can't go when she needs to because the closest toilet to her is occupied for a long time. If Lynda waits until she needs to go, she might not be able to make it to the other toilet. Plus the one other toilet is used by everyone else so she's not even guaranteed to have use of it when she needs it.

The disabled/accessible toilet does not belong to Sue. It is not exclusively for her use. She has to share it, whether she likes it or not. They could have worked together on the toilet issue to make both their lives easier, but Sue has no empathy for Lynda's struggles either, so I can see why Lynda might not give a fuck back re: the parking issue.

Yes, the difficulty is that the employer owns neither the building nor the car park and the owner has met the minimum standard by providing the three spaces. Allocation of a specific space would require the building owner’s cooperation and is made nigh on impossible if the car park is open to other users entitled to use a BB space. They need an adviser versed in the Equality Act and reasonable adjustment to see if a solution is possible. I think it’s also important to point out that the onus is only on the employer to provide ‘reasonable’ adjustment. The responsibility ends when all avenues have been exhausted and no reasonable solution can be found.

Also what’s stopping the management company saying of fuck this getting us involved and filling that void in next to where Lynda is now parking with more spaces or creating a flower/tree bed. Now it’s not got side space anymore.

Thing is you could go around all day.

Sue if we guess has a side ramp which is what’s causing her issues. She needs or wants a side ramp because of children… so the car she has is the issue for her parking in a legally defined space big enough for disabled people.

It’s not Lynda’s fault that Sue has this particular car. So now it’s Sues choices that have created the issue rather than Lynda being a twat.

Lynda might be a twat though 😂

It’s actually not if what the OP says is true. Lynda is waiting until there are signs that Sue is heading for the loo and then she nips in ahead of her. A needs assessment would determine whether or not Lynda could manage to use a standard toilet in the event of the accessible loo being occupied. If this is the case, Sue’s need is greater because she has no alternative but to use the accessible loo as the standard ones don’t meet her needs. The Equality Act is there to protect the rights of disabled people to access what they need to participate in society. It’s not there to facilitate people being dicks to each other just because they can.

Except that the employer can’t provide adequately for both employees because they don’t own the building or car park, and the building owner is refusing to act because they are already meeting the minimum standard for disabled parking. The obvious solution here is to do a needs assessment for both employees and then allocate the more suitable space to Sue if there is no disability related reason that Lynda actually needs it.

If Lynda actually needs the space more (which I doubt if there is another standard disabled bay allowing room to fully open the car doors) then it has to be disability related, and not just personal preference. If it’s disability related then the employer has a problem which on the face of it seems to be at stalemate. And it appears that there may be a future need for Lynda to use a wheelchair, but again, a needs assessment would determine whether she would need the same space as Sue if it was a manual or simple powered chair not requiring a ramp or extra space.

My kids always need to go when I need to go… ima call them bullies 😏🙃

Wow, that’s a really great list of assumptions!

As opposed to Lynda, who needs to go, but waits till she knows for definite that the other person does aswell, and then makes the other person wait . Sue is going when she needs to, Lynda is going when both her and Sue need. Is this the same Lynda who can go to the normal toilet in bars if the disableds are really busy?

Pretty sure they cannot allocate a car parking space they do not own to either Lynda or Sue that’s upon the management of the actual site.

Basically anyone visiting any of the units/stores/warehouses on site could park in any of the empty BB spaces at any time proving the have a badge.

Well done on posting the most ableist comment on the thread.

It’s also about whatever Lynda’s needs for the space are- they could be as equal and valid as Sue’s.

The onus is on the employer to find out and then provide adequately for both employees.

This is the way the Equality Act would view things. According to the social model on which it’s based, disability is not just as a result of a physical or mental condition, but also as a result of the barriers placed by society itself, which make it difficult for the person with the condition to participate in normal everyday life.

I can’t think of a clearer example of this than the circumstances of Lynda and Sue as described here. It’s not about who is more disabled than who, it’s about how their needs differ, and the reluctance of all other parties to come up with a solution. The building and car park are not owned by the employer and the building owner isn’t interested in providing a solution because they’re meeting the minimum standard by providing two disabled spaces.

Glad the OP is taking advice and I hope they get some expert advice on what reasonable adjustment means in this case. One solution would be to allocate the more suitable space to Sue, but Lynda’s needs would need to be taken into account and it would need to be determined whether her use of the space was actually disability related or just personal preference.

Nope.

“All they can do” is instigate a proper assessment of needs, since they HAVE been informed Lynda now has a BB.

Until they bother to do that then Lynda will have to continue to meet her needs via the avenue available to her- namely the parking space and toilet that are provided for disabled employees.

Again... because an assessment hasn't been carried out - Lynda might have a valid reason to want that space which isn't the size. The location could be a factor

It's not about being "more disabled" it's about the fact that Sue simply can not use the other space due to the physical requirements of her large powered chair and the ramp.

Unlike you, I am far more disabled without my wheelchair than with. Just goes to show that not all disabled people are the same doesn't it?

This thread is batshit. Some of you have clearly never heard of equity. It's different to equality and takes the individual needs of each person into consideration so that they can achieve the same outcome.

If this went to an OT assessment, which it should, the assessment would show that to allow Sue to access work, her need is greater than Lynda's for the wider space, as she uses a ramp and a wheelchair.

Lynda would be assessed as needing the closer space, as she apparently has walking difficulties. That's what equity is.

The OP has already said that Lynda has a blue badge for a walking problem. Workplaces usually do know their employees' disabilities for reasonable adjustment reasons. My workplace knows all of my conditions due to an OT assessment.

Oh, and, now I use a wheelchair, I am absolutely "more disabled" than when I could walk with a stick. If anyone has ever tried to go about life in a wheelchair, you'd know this. It's completely and utterly different and SO much harder than being able to use your legs, even if that causes pain.

Lynda hasn't informed the company of a change of condition, so until she does all they can do is assume she doesn't have extra needs and, is just being a dick.

When I was due to return to work, my workplace used a private Occupational Health Company to make a private assessment. I expect you have one to check people's desks are the right height and that your pregnant peeps are safe. Get them to do an OH assessment on both as to their work needs. I'm supposed to use a disabled toilet in case I collapse which annoys many disabled toilet users as I look quite fit and healthy. I don't currently have a Blue Badge.

OH may decide that Lynda needs A parking space available but not one of the wider ones for example. And decide that she needs access to A toilet nearby (for IBS etc) but not the disabled one. If she is using the Disabled one when she is able to use a regular toilet "just in case" this IS petty bullying. She can explain to OH why she must use a disabled one if she doesn't want to discuss it with you. OH can also access medical records to find out why she has a Blue Badge at all. It also means that OH can ensure you're meeting Sue's needs.

It strikes me that Lynda believes she is invincible and is trying to get you for constructive dismissal. You need to check her time keeping and give her a formal warning about it. Take threats of "bullying in the workplace" seriously and document it thoroughly, in front of her. However - take any complaints about Lynda just as seriously and document those as well. Poor quality of work, missed deadlines, her obvious cruelty to Sue... All need to be documented.

And if Sue parks in the bigger space and Lynda can’t get out of her car? That’s ok I suppose because she isn’t ’wheelchair bound’?

No one (least of all random ill informed people on the internet) are in a position to know what would happen to Lynda if she didn’t have that space- that’s why there are laws around doing proper needs assessments in the workplace. So that nobody can see a wheelchair and let pity take over critical thinking.

The Sues off this world don’t need your pity.