Annoying that this is a DM article. Disabled children refused lunch booking at Pizza Hut

[NewChristian]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474615/Pizza-Hut-accused-money-grabbers-refusing-book-group-disabled-children-lunch-carers-not-eating-well.html

...because their carers would not also be eating. The carers don't eat because the children need help to eat! So they are working with them. My daughter attends New Hope - she is severely disabled and cannot easily access the community (she's in the photo actually). I find it very sad that our society clearly still sees disabled people as second class citizens. I was going to book my youngest dd's party at Pizza Hut but now I won't!

Try ringing every restaurant in the area and try to book for 28 people time and see how many restaurants accept your booking. Then tell them only half will be eating
I doubt you will find a single place
I don't think its anything tondo with disability, its to do with economics

I think the fact that some were not eating isn't the issue. They are carers and as such Pizza Hut should accept that this is what they need to do.

If they were refusing in the grounds that some wouldn't be eating, that's not ok.

However it's not discrimination to not take the booking based on the fact that they wouldn't take the booking from anyone.

They have backed down because of the negative publicity.

I don't think the restaurant was wrong. If their policy is not to take bookings for that number of people then it makes no difference if they were disabled or not. They offered different time alternatives which were entirely reasonable.

I'm disabled and would have no problem being told that by a restaurant if I tried to book for 28 on a Saturday at peak time.

I repeat...they've obviously backed down because someone went crying to the daily mail. They should only have accepted the booking because now they've got this ridiculous negative pr, not because they were in the wrong for sticking to their company policy. If I rang them up and tried to book in 28 people at lunchtime I wouldn't be allowed to either...it has nothing to do with disability!

Jesabel had it spot on.

Equal rights is NOT treating everyone the same. It's making allowances so everyone has the same rights of access and enjoyment i.e to eat at any time they choose.

Pretty shocked at people claiming equal rights for people with disabilities should just mean equal treatment with no adjustments.

I guess you probably don't realise this if you don't have any first hand experience with disability though?

My mistake. I didn't realise not having first hand experience with a disability meant I was precluding from making a comment on mumsnet on a chat board. 🙄

OP - ring around every restaurant chain in your area. Tell them you want to book 28 places and 14 are eating and it's peak time. Let us know how you get on.

fanjo the reason the time they wanted to eat was not available was not down to the fact that they were disabled.

It was down to the size of the party. If the restaurant would struggle to get many more people in, reducing their profits I can see why they do it.

Saddened by the lack of empathy and understanding of some here.

Indirect discrimination is putting rules in place that apply to everyone but which put those with a disability at an unfair disadvantage.

A reasonable adjustment is predicted on lots of things and includes the size of the organisation and the money and resources available. It may have been more reasonable for a small, local restaurant to refuse the booking but it's harder to argue in the case of Pizza Hut.

In legislation there is no duty on the person with the disability to make the adjustment.

Initially the refusal to take the booking appears to have been due to the fact that the carers were not eating. It's only when Pizza Hut were asked for a statement that the large group policy was quoted.

As a result of the actions of Pizza Hut, these children stayed in the community centre and had takeaway pizza and were deprived of lunch in a restaurant.

t may have been more reasonable for a small, local restaurant to refuse the booking but it's harder to argue in the case of Pizza Hut.

Not necessarily. Pizza Hut is a franchise. So at this particular one, a small lunch take may make massive differences. Which is probably the reason the rule about large parties was put in place.

I used to own a restaurant and have worked for Pizza Hut. On average, Large parties tend to stay longer and spend less per head. Which is why lots of restaurants don't take large bookings at their busiest times.

I definitely think allowances should have been made for the carers. But anyone booking a table at a restaurant has to follow that restaurants booking rules.

Had these all been non disabled people they wouldn't have taken a booking where 50% weren't eating. That's where, imo, the discrimination could be placed.

No one has a right to eat in a restaurant at a particular time.

So they didn't originally take the booking as they don't take bookings that large at that time of day and now they've realised the circumstances they've said it was the wrong decision?

Have I got that right? If so, I don't see the problem and actually I don't see the problem refusing if it was due to the size of the table, lots of places have similar policies; would they allow a table of say six, three of which caters who would not be eating?

*carers not caters!

Someone, either the organisation or the restaurant, should have suggested that as they couldn't book a table for 14, perhaps they could consider two tables of 7? Unless they were all the same coach they could even stagger their arrival to make it easier for the restaurant. I've done this when organising meals for work when I've been told I can't book for >8 people.

I don't agree with the 'Pizza Hut must have been in the wrong because they've apologised' argument. Pizza Hut have accepted that apologising is their best option for this to all calm down quickly. It's commonplace for companies to apologise even when they're not at fault to pacify a customer.

Actually I think it is a right. Unless you feel that disabled children should be kept at home and shouldn't be able to integrate with the community.

Where the hell did I suggest that that was the case? I have repeatedly said that a group of 8 plus 8 carers would be reasonable so they're at no disadvantage but it's wholly up to the restaurant whether to allow a group of 28 at peak time. It's not a right to have a group of 14 (plus 14) at peak time.

Most of you are spectacularly missing the point and many of the posts on this thread show ignorance about issues affecting disabled people on a day to day basis. But unfortunately I expected this to be the case which is partly why I posted the thread. I'm not throwing my toys out of the pram. My dd doesn't like Pizza Hut and wouldn't have gone this particular time. I really think that people have no idea how different it is to arrange an outing for a group of disabled children.

It does sound as if you are saying that disabled people shouldn't integrate with society. In practice most people wouldn't book anywhere for 28 people unless it was a work party. The point is that for a group of disabled children the set of circumstances and the provision necessary to accommodate a 'normal' outing is unusual. This should have been understood from the outset as far as I'm concerned.

It seems that they apparently did admit they were wrong

No they didn't really. It's called damage limitation. They don't really think they did anything wrong but have been forced to say that they did.

In practice most people wouldn't book anywhere for 28 people unless it was a work party

In practice, most people wouldn't book anywhere for 14 either.

In our local press, the reported position seems to be that the person handling the booking didn't have much experience.

No one is saying they shouldn't have gone at all.

I take offence to that. I am carer for my mum.

The point is the timing.

Consideration should be on a case by case basis.

Katenka - it is not practical for the children to be eating their lunch at either 11am or 3pm.