Regarding disabled parking

[appendix]

I work for a small company. We have office space in a small building which houses a number of other companies. There is just about enough adequate parking for all employees in terms of number of spaces.
Here is where I think I've messed up. I'm operations manager. The company is too small to have HR (we outsource things like payroll) so often HR adjacent queries end up with me.

We have 2 disabled employees. One (Sue) has significantly mobility limitations and uses a big motorised wheelchair. The other (Lynda) has less significant mobility issues (ie doesn't need a wheelchair, can walk small distances.) Both are have blue badges.

There are 3 disabled spaces in the carpark. One can be discounted as it's always in use by an employee of another company in the building who starts work very early. Out of the remaining 2 only one is big enough to accommodate Sue's needs (electric ramp for a big wheelchair etc). The issue we have is that Lynda insists on parking in it. She gets to work earlier than Sue who has childcare limitations and always parks there. It's causing a lot of frustration and ill will, especially as the other non wheelchair sized space is actually closer to the entrance, so it seems a perverse choice.

There has been a lot of grumbling among staff about this. It was especially bad a few days ago when Sue had to call for assistance - she had to get out of her car at the entrance and a colleague had to park her vehicle for her. Lynda sits watching this. Other staff members have spoken to her and asked if she could park in the other, closer space but she refuses.

Note- Sue and Lynda have clashed a bit over the years- there's only one disabled loo on our floor and yet they seem to always need it at the same time etc. I've been reliably informed that Lynda won't park close to the entrance because then her start and leave times will be visible to everyone- the other larger space is around a bend and can be accessed via a side door so her in and outs are not visible.

Anyway, we have spoken multiple times to the people who own the offices. They give no shits. The car park is apparently compliant in terms of spaces and they're not prepared to do anything more.

Our company owner has now said that whichever employee gets in first needs to park next to her reserved space and let reception know. When Sue arrives the person in the space next to the reserved one nips out, moves their car and Sue parks across both spaces. Owner then just parks where she can find a space.

It's not ideal especially in the rain. It's caused massive ill will towards Lynda who has just come to me and said she feels she's being bullied due to her disability. (She's not being included in lunch orders or social stuff organised by staff themselves, although she is fully included in terms of her job.) Honestly the company owner doesn't feel particularly warm towards her.

I'm not a HR person. I felt that as she wasn't being excluded in terms of work etc there's not a lot I can do about people liking her and I pretty much told her that. I was talking to a friend about it though and they said we could actually be in trouble for not including her in lunches/ social things, especially as it's because of issues caused by a disability. (She's invited to all work organised events, just not informal staff drinks / lunches/ chats/ coffee rounds organised by the staff)

I'm going to suggest getting some HR advice but was I wrong?

she would have gone through very similar in the uk and would have had to prove her disabilities to the relevant authorities. Blue badges are not handed out like flyers, but a lot of people have to fight bloody hard for one.
A blue badge is her proof of disability

Everyone is going to hate Lynda even more. I think the boss needs to have a very careful conversation noting that she does not need the larger space and it feels like she is bullying Sue, not that others are bullying her and the ‘coincidence’ of her suddenly deciding she needs the bathroom when Sue makes a move to go is frankly childish and spiteful.

The boss is not qualified to decide who needs that particular parking space or that one of them has priority entry to the disable toilet.
They both have disabilities, it's not up to the boss to decide who has the worst disability.
As it stands at the moment, both are equally entitled to use the parking space and the toilet

The manager doesn’t get to decide which BB holder is ‘more’ disabled- the law has already decided they are equally entitled to BB spaces (along with every other BB holder in the country).

And here we go again.

Managing situations like this requires specialist knowledge including disability rights and employment law, together with communication skills. The OP has already said she is getting specialist advice; however I am really worried people will read posts like this and think dealing with a disabled employee in this way is somehow OK. It is not and may (frequently does) lead to a lot of distress to disabled people and a world of legal consequences for employers.

Just to summarise:

The boss doesn't know whether or not Lynda needs the larger space as it seems she has never been asked what her actual needs are.

It is possible she is bullying Sue...or it could be that Sue & others are bullying her. Or both. They need to keep an open mind and find out the facts rather than assume their disabled employee is 'childish and spiteful'.

It is worth mentioning that mistreating someone due to a disability goes beyond mere bullying; it could constitute harassment which is specifically unlawful under the Equality Act. So some of these work colleagues could be breaking the law as well as just being obnoxious.

As a BB holder myself, believe me, I absolutely know this, but if they're talking about making accommodations for disabled people, it appears clear that Sue's need for the bigger space is obvious.

It might be obvious that she needs a space that size- that doesn’t mean that Lynda doesn’t also need a space that size.

Disability is complex, just because you can’t see an obvious reason for a specific need, that doesn’t mean the need doesn’t exist.

It doesn't have to be th SIZE of the space...

It's close to the side entrance, OP hasn't clarified if this is closer to Lynda's desk. Just the main entrance. Lynda struggles to walk. The position of the space might be what's better for her.

There's also NO question that Lynda is being bullied, regardless of if she is being unreasonable, by her colleagues

Nothing is obvious

But OP says Sue has a large motorised chair and Sue is much more mobile and able to scoot to the loo ahead of the chair. I don't think purely from what the OP says that Lynda doesn’t need as big a space because she's able to walk/get out of her car without difficulty?

Because OP hasn't taken the time to do an access assessment and find out what needs Lynda has

We only know what she sees. Which is essentially "Sue is in a wheelchair and therefore is more disabled". Which is disgusting tbh

OP also hadn't said Lynda doesn't have difficulty getting out of the car NOW, just before she was entitled to a BB, which was before her condition worsened

This would be illegal in the UK. You don’t need a formal diagnosis to be considered disabled under the Equality Act - it’s the effects of your condition which qualify you if they meet the EA definition of disability. It’s also illegal for an employer to even ask an employee about disability. It’s up to them whether they want to disclose the details.

Lynda chooses to use a parking space further away from the door which suggests that she’s more mobile than Sue, who can’t walk and uses a motorised wheelchair. Lynda’s choice to use the space more suitable for Sue’s needs with the use of the ramp etc, has meant that other staff have had to help Sue out with parking. And it’s not disgusting to assume that someone in a wheelchair is more disabled in some ways than someone who is mobile on two legs. Lynda can walk, Sue cannot. It’s not rocket science to figure out that the needs of one outweigh the needs of the other. This thread is batshit.

If Sue has to negotiate a ramp and a bulky motorised chair then clearly she needs the bigger space, as Lynda doesn’t have the need for the extra space to accommodate these things. She can walk effectively enough if she can nip into the loo ahead of Sue when she sees her make a move towards it.

Sue has only needed help from others once with getting out of her car, so what has she been doing the rest of the time?

Lynda chooses the space which is out of site. Maybe she doesn't want all her work colleagues to see her struggling in and out of her vehicle, or maybe despite the other space being a blue badge space it isn't quite wide enough to full open the car door? Lynda has already explained why she goes to the toilet first

Op. What would you do if Lynda turned up at work in a wheelchair next week?

This isn’t strictly true. Wider accessible toilet stalls inside a standard toilet facility can be used by anyone who needs them. Stand alone single accessible toilet rooms are for use by disabled people only.

The reason she goes to the toilet first isn’t the point, the fact that she is able to is. What seems to be happening here according to OP, is that there are two disabled employees with differing needs and for whatever reason, one of them is making things difficult for the other, and no-one seems to want to approach either of them to sort it out.

A proper needs assessment should be carried out for both employees to find out how best to accommodate them. If the disabled spaces available are not sufficient to meet the needs of both of them, then that’s where the requirement for reasonable adjustment lies, as well as establishing whether Lynda is able to use standard toilet facilities in the event that the disabled loo is occupied - she may need more room to manoeuvre or need a washbasin beside the loo for example. It’s not discriminatory to establish these things when you are considering two people with differing needs,

Lynda manages to use a space both further away from the door and closer to the door she can sneak out apparently...

And it is disgusting to assume anything about anyone's disability based on merely what you can see!

Lynda might be able to walk but it might cause her extreme pain however she is unable to access a wheelchair or doesn't feel able to use one. She might be able to walk but be unsteady on her feet and more of a danger than Sue in a stable chair. Lynda might well turn up in a wheelchair in a year's time as her condition worsens.

Not true

Many single access "disabled" toilets are being changed to be called "accessible" toilets instead. Toilets for everyone with an assumption that someone with a medical need (not necessarily a disability) would get priority

Re the toilet issue. Couldn't both toilets simply be made unisex. I'm a blue badge holder and use disabled loos and they are often for either sex.

if you read the relevant section of the Equality Act, accessible ‘ambulent’ toilets consisting of wider stalls within a standard block facility can be used by non disabled people who need the extra space. Single access accessible toilet rooms opening onto a corridor or other circulation space are reserved for disabled people and their carers.

So how come places like Asda have single access, wide space toilets which are labled as Accessible not Disabled?

In fact, a quick Google says that disabled toilet is the colloquial term and the correct term is Accessible and says they are not just for people in wheelchairs