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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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 😂

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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!

From the OP’s description my experience based guess is that Sue drives a wheelchair accessible vehicle. That means the drivers seat has been removed and she drives from her wheelchair. To get in and out in the wheelchair, the ramps would likely be at the rear of the vehicle, meaning that she needs more space to enter and exit the vehicle and to manoeuvre the wheelchair, which sounds quite big and bulky. Most standard disabled spaces would accommodate this, but the one in question is easier for Sue to use because there is no other adjacent parking space there, so there is more room to manoeuvre.

Sue’s choices haven’t created this situation any more than Lynda’s have - the vehicle she drives meets her needs, so it’s not really a choice but a necessity. The issue with the toilet situation seems to suggest that Lynda is indeed a twat because she seems to lie in wait for Sue to show signs of wanting to use the loo before nipping in ahead of her. So it could well be that she’s using the parking space to create more difficulty for Sue because of whatever bad feeling there is between them. That’s something that a needs assessment would sort out.

If Lynda is easily able to use the standard loos when Sue occupies the accessible one, then that’s what she should do. Yes, she’s just as entitled to use the accessible one, but if Sue is limited to the accessible loo because the standard ones won’t accommodate her wheelchair or other needs, then her need is greater. Same with the parking space. If Lynda genuinely needs that space because of disability related issues not solved by the alternative available space, then fair enough. If not, again, Sue’s needs are greater. Nothing to do with who is more disabled or more ‘deserving’ but a simple matter of need over personal choice.

That’s what ‘reasonable adjustment’ means. ‘Reasonable’ applies just as much to the employees’ behaviour towards each other as it does to the employers’ responsibility to ensure equal treatment. Lots of posters overlooking that in their rush to defend Lynda, when it’s fairly obvious to those of us who have worked in the field of disability support, that if Lynda is independently mobile and can’t demonstrate a disability related reason for using the larger space, other than personal preference, then in the context of the parking space Sue’s needs are greater because she has to rely on a motorised wheelchair and a ramp from a wheelchair adapted vehicle - suggesting a high level of disability and resulting need. The Equality Act doesn’t play ‘disability top trumps’ - it doesn’t consider the disability directly, but rather the level of need that arises from it.

How can management fix that though?

You cannot force people to be sociable and if you tried to force lyndas inclusion you might equally get the others backs up and complaining about bullying by being made to be nice to a person they dont like, for whatever reason.

It would likely be a ton easier to sort out the parking spaces than get into bullying allegations.

These are lunches and coffee runs within the office

And if you are deliberately leaving ONE member of staff out of everything then, yes, it is bullying

A couple of you going for a drink, fine, everyone bar the one member of staff you all gossip about, bullying