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?

We’re not talking about assumptions though are we. We’re advocating for a proper assessment of both employees to find out what their actual needs are so that both can be accommodated properly. But l think common sense needs to prevail. Sue needs to use a wheelchair accessible vehicle and a ramp to exit the vehicle in a bulky motorised chair. So it’s reasonable that she would need the bigger parking space to accommodate this - especially as she has had difficulty with the alternative space requiring help from other staff. Unless Lynda, who is not presently wheelchair bound, needs to use the space for reasons connected with her disability then it could be argued that the space should be left for Sue’s use. The Equality Act doesn’t advocate that personal choice overrides need, so if there is no disability related reason that Lynda needs to use it then it could be argued that the space be left free for Sue. If there is a disability related reason then reasonable adjustment should be made so that both sets of needs are accommodated. Same with the toilet. It’s clear that Sue is unable to use the standard facility because of her wheelchair. So the needs assessment should establish whether Lynda is reasonably able to use the standard facility when the disabled toilet is in use. If so, problem solved. If not then reasonable adjustment would include cooperation between Sue and Lynda in the use of the accessible toilet.

Different disabled people have different needs and after a lifetime of working with the disabled and being disabled myself I can tell you that the needs of someone who is confined to a wheelchair are significantly different to someone who has independent mobility - albeit with varying degrees of difficulty. There is no disability top trumps, just differing needs according to the type, degree and effect of disability.

Saying Sue is obviously more disabled because she uses a wheelchair IS an assumption and is creating a hierarchy of disability

We both agree a proper assessment needs to be made but any discussion made here as to who "deserves" the space more is based purely on the assumption that wheelchair = more disabled.

This is a private car park and from what OP says the disabled spaces are of differing sizes. So the law here is the Equality Act as it applies to reasonable adjustment in the workplace.

If one space is bigger and more suitable for a wheelchair accessible vehicle and a ramp, then reasonable adjustment would be to designate that space to the user of that vehicle. If there is a valid disability related reason that Lynda also needs the same sized space, then reasonable adjustment would be to provide another space of equal size or modify the smaller space if possible. It’s not a question of deciding who is more disabled, but how their needs differ, and it’s the employers’ responsibility to assess those needs and provide reasonable adjustment wherever possible to meet them.

Neither the building nor the car park is owned by Lynda and Sue's employer, so they cannot dictate who parks where. The fact is, both Lynda and Sue are entitled to use any of the disabled parking bays. Anyone with a blue badge can use them. The spaces are all the same size. The legally required size, hence why the owners won't do anything about it. The difference is, the "big" bay does not have another bay beside it.

Also, Sue has been able to use the cramped bay. Sure, probably with some difficulty, but she's still managed to all but one time when she needed someone else to park the car. What was different that time? Had the cars on either size parked like twats?

If Lynda does end up in a wheelchair as her mobility continues to decline, they are going to still have the same issue. Lynda will still get there earlier. Lynda isn't the problem. The bays are too small for Sue to use comfortably (although she seems to manage most of the time).

@Rosscameasdoody The employer does not own the building or the car park. They can not modify the spaces or create another one. The people who do own it have refused to make any changes because they have provided what is legally required.

Nope. The needs of wheelchair users differ significantly to those of disabled people who are mobile. I didn’t say more disabled, l said different needs.

There are times when wheelchair users have an advantage over someone who walks with difficulty. I’m a wheelchair user - l can walk with difficulty, but l’m very limited as to how far and how quickly l can do so. If l’m not using my wheelchair l look for parking spaces nearer entrances, but l can use narrower non disabled spaces if suitable ones are available, as l don’t need a wide space to manoeuvre a wheelchair. Conversely, if l am using my wheelchair l can park further away from the entrance, leaving closer spaces for ambulent disabled people, but l would need to use a wider disabled space for the wheelchair.

If we recognise that different degrees of disability have different needs then there is no hierarchy of disability because respecting each others’ differences means everyone’s needs are accommodated. That’s not what’s happening in the Lynda/Sue scenario. There doesn’t appear to be any love lost between them if what OP says is true, so it follows that there is no mutual respect for each others’ needs. And the situation has arisen and been allowed to escalate because the employer isn’t fulfilling their legal duty to meet their needs wherever possible. And it’s also possible that one, or possibly both of them are behaving like dicks into the bargain, so the sooner it’s sorted out the better.

I would argue that the building owners haven’t provided what’s legally required if the two disabled spaces are of differing sizes, which seems to be the case here.

They're not. They're the same size. One just has more space around it because it doesn't have another bay beside it.

I assumed they were different sizes too, but this makes more sense. But if they’re both the standard disabled bays with crosshatches each side, there should be enough room to unload a motorised wheelchair. It sounds like Sue drives a wheelchair accessible vehicle from her wheelchair and then exits via ramps out of the back of the vehicle, so it takes up a fair bit of space.

This is like an episode of The Office, all you need is for David Brent to turn up and do a team building exercise which includes a cross country run!
Why don't you introduce a car share scheme and tell Sue and Linda they need to car share!

Seriously this is an absolute minefield and it is only heading one way which is grievance territory. This situation needs sorting as, assuming the company knew about the disabilities at the time of employment, or even if not, alloted disabled parking spaces might be seen as a reasonable adjustment.
As for one of them being left out of social gatherings, either informal or otherwise, a tribunal might see that as bullying or victimisation.
Good luck with sorting this out, I really don't envy you.

The toilet in question is a stand alone single accessible toilet, not a wider cubicle inside a standard toilet facility (which are not actually accessible in anyway).

A company that doesn’t own the car park, and doesn’t have permission from the owner to do so, can not allocate parking space to their employees.

Lynda chooses to use a parking space further away from the door

Further away from the MAIN door, which Lynda doesn’t use- she uses the side door next to the parking space she uses.

-No one has bothered to find out why this is. Could be closer to her desk than the main door, closer to the lift than the main door, have flat access, means she passes the loo on the way in so doesn’t have to walk further with bladder/bowl urgency after a car journey or a million other disability related issues.

The only difference between ANY of those issues and Sue’s issue is that you can see a wheelchair so it’s easier to understand that need if you can’t be arsed to actually think about the situation.

It’s not rocket science to figure out that the needs of one outweigh the needs of the other

Wheelchair users needs do not necessarily outweigh other disabled people’s needs - it’s possible that Lynda’s needs (while not as immediately obvious) are such that her use of that space is as vital as Sue’s.

So much internalised ableism on this thread.

If only diasabled people were like real people ...

They are. They can be complete arses.

You're fortunate. You have two of them. But you need legal advice. If you outsource HR, you also outsource and have access to HR legal advice.

You need to create new policies for fairness. You can only do this with legal advice.

What you think is fair is only a sand storm in your own head.

Just step back from the situation. Step back from all parties and state you are seeking legal advice in how to make sure all parties are fully supported.

Just what else would you do???

It looks to me as if Lynda already has enough evidence to make a tribunal claim (being ostracised as her disability progresses, and having her concerns about this dismissed when raised). She may not win a case, but that’s by the by and no-one wants grievances and tribunals going on in a small org - it’s toxic for everyone.

clocking in/out would be incendiary and provide evidence to support a claim of bullying - especially as it is being done intentionally to trap Lynda. The boss may lie about the reasons, but a good barrister would rip someone apart in a tribunal.

The boss needs to backtrack quickly.

my suggestion would be that the boss acts on Linda’s complaint, and turns informal ‘activities’ into formal ones that include everyone - maybe announcing daily chill-outs of 15 minutes or so morning and afternoon, with coffee/cakes paid for, and some such - communicated to everyone as an opportunity for everyone to relax together with the boss/manager/whoever, and this change should be diplomatically worded to include a comment that informal social gatherings during work times should cease as there is a potential for people to feel slighted by informal social gatherings that might be construed as exclusive.

The boss might want to do workplace assessments, on occ health grounds, to ensure L’s and S’s needs are being met. This will not lead to any solution for the parking problem, but will underline that the boss is doing the right thing by her staff.

In the meantime, having an able-bodied early arrival person informally ‘reserve’ the space is probably ok as long as there is always a space for Lynda when she arrives - Lynda can’t complain so long as the other disabled space is always free.

After a reasonable amount of time has passed - more than 3 months - the boss then has two choices to actually ‘solve’ the problem; either (a) issue an instruction that that side door is no longer to be used by anyone for access (this option is only a good one if reasonable adjustment assessments have been carried out and it is known that there is no benefit to using the side doors), or (b) issuance of an employee handbook (drafted by external HR consultant, and introduced appropriately), which covers all standard employment policies, and includes not only best practice guidelines regarding inclusion, etc, but also includes the right to monitor activities which may extend to technology usage, in order to ensure that inappropriate behaviour and the accessing of unsuitable material in an office is managed. Such policies always have a comment that people have lunchtimes etc and that the policy is not intended to stop people from normal browsing from time to time, but that accessing content that may be offensive to others can create pressure in small organisations.

The point of (b)? It then allows the boss to track logging in and logging out of all staff, and this will provide evidence for addressing the abuse of working hours. Tackling that removes the incentive to use the space round the corner.

All of the above needs to be managed by external HR advisors. It will be money well spent.

It hasn't been stated that Sue's wheelchair ramp is at the back of the vehicle. But I also can't see that it's been stated that she drives from the wheelchair. It has been stated that she has a large family. If you drive from wheelchair and have to exit via the back, you lose most of the passenger seats to create a clear path. Even if she's transferring from a normal driver's seat to her wheelchair within the vehicle, the wheelchair would still be at the front and need a clear path to the back. Since someone has previously parked her car for her it is likely that the drivers seat is in place and she is transferring in the van. Given all the talk about Sue not being able to unload her chair from the van I think she might have a side ramp. It's the only way to have all the passenger seats and get a wheelchair in the front. They're a lot less common than rear ramps. From the information we have about Sue's situation it sounds like a side ramp would probably suit her needs best. However, the problem with having a side ramp on a large van is that then the width of a parking space needed to unload is huge and I'm not sure that the minimum requirement for a disabled parking space is big enough. I looked into a side lift for myself at one point (would need similar space to a ramp) and, though it would be fantastic from the point of view of how I use the vehicle, it would be a nightmare trying to find places to park it where I could unload, so I ruled it out because of that. You don't see many side lifts, and I think that's because of the parking problem, but it could be the only thing that meets Sue's needs.

How is she being a dick?

I don't have issues with comprehension, I just understand redundancy

You make a role redundant not a person. So you then cannot employ someone else in that role. But in this case the role isn't redundant.

If you want to get rid of someone because of behavioural issues you would need to go down the disciplinary route.

Interesting that you think someone should be sacked for being a dick when your response to me was so rude.

Also the only "crimes" she is committing is parking in a spot she is legally entitled to and using a toilet she is legally entitled to. So yes you are very much suggesting she is made redundant for being disabled.

They have bothered to find out if you read the thread. It's because she can't be seen arriving and leaving from that entrance.

No, if you read the thread you see the OP has been "reliably informed" that this is what the reason is. Presumably by the managers bitching that they think Linda isn't working her full hours. She certainly doesn't say Linda has said this so anything else is pure assumption.

What has happened is that the staff, who seem to spend far too long looking at the car park, have prior to Linda's disability seen here over the years parking in the main bit of the car park. Since needing a blue badge spot due to a disability she has parked down the side. The assumption (reliably informed) is that its so no one can see her come and go so she can work less hours. There's an underlying tone of "lazy disabled" to that.

When in reality it may be a reason due to her disability that makes that spot more suitable. But the OP hasn't said that they have actually asked her that.

It's all entirely irrelevant anyway because the actual issue is that the disabled parking spots don't meet Sue's needs. If the other company employed another disabled person with a blue badge this company would be right back to square one (and in fact worse off as Sue appears to arrive last). Linda is just a red herring in all of this that's being scapegoated because its easier to blame the "lazy disabled"

I wondered, OP, whether there may be some self-consciousness in the desire not to be seen getting into a car if the process is difficult and you might feel vulnerable being watched while doing so?

This, I can imagine, being hard to say as a reason to park round the corner. Privacy, dignity it can be hard to talk about.

I've worked with people with mobility issues and there is a huge range of individual sensitivities IME. Adding that to the politics and policies of the workplace could require Good Friday agreement style diplomacy to handle successfully.

Nope.

The op says there is gossip that that’s the reason- coming in through the side so no one knows she is fiddling her time sheets.

There is always gossip in offices, only a fool believes it without any proof.

In what way is she being a dick?

You can’t sack someone for parking in a space they are legally entitled to park in, even if they are doing it to be a dick (which there is no evidence of here anyway).

Being disabled isn't a free pass to be an arsehole.

Sue being the right sort of (visibly pitiful) disabled also isn’t a free pass to have her needs met over and above her disabled colleagues- the parking and toilet situation has to be made to work for both their needs.

And Sue has greater need. As I said, disability is not a free pass.

There are two disabled people, one with worse mobility needs, so the one that can actually walk should not park in the only space that allows the one confined permanently to a wheelchair to get out of her vehicle.

Insisting on doing so, is being a dick, and if I was the company owner, I would be looking to get rid of Lynda (because she is a dick) on the basis of her not working her hours.

Act like a dick, get dick consequences. Theres no whattaboutery about it.