DDB 94 Department for Work and Pensions
MEMORANDUM BY DEPARTMENT FOR WORK
AND PENSIONS TO JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ON ISSUES
RAISED IN RESPECT OF CLAUSE 6 OF THE DRAFT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
BILL
This memorandum provides
further information in respect of clause 6 (premises provisions)
sought by the Committee at the informal meeting with DWP officials
on 27 January 2004.
Common parts of premises
The Committee asked how
clause 6 might affect the situation where a disabled tenant needs
alterations to be made to common parts of rented premises to improve
accessibility for them.
In line with the recommendation
of the Disability Rights Task Force, clause 6 does not require
a controller of premises (eg a landlord or manager of the premises)
to make alterations to physical features of those premises. Thus,
a controller of premises would not be under a DDA duty to build
a permanent ramp to improve disability access, as that would entail
the removal or alteration of a physical feature.
However, clause 6 does
require a controller of premises to take reasonable steps to provide
an auxiliary aid or service which would facilitate a disabled
person's enjoyment of let premises or associated facilities.
Thus, a controller of premises would be under a duty to provide,
where reasonable, an auxiliary aid to alleviate a disabled tenant's
difficulty in gaining access to their demised premises. This
might, for example, entail the supply of a portable ramp to overcome
the barrier caused by steps in the common parts.
The controller of premises
would also have a duty, where reasonable, to change his practices,
policies or procedures, or the terms of the letting. He might,
for example, allow a disabled tenant to use an existing accessible
service entrance where this would otherwise not have been allowed.
If a controller of premises
has a practice, policy or procedure of seeking consent to alterations
to common parts from other tenants then it might be reasonable
for him to waive or alter that, where he is permitted to do so.
This might avoid eg a single tenant blocking alterations that
the controller of premises is otherwise willing to make.
However, if the controller
of premises is legally obliged to obtain consent from a third
party before alterations to common parts are made, then it is
unlikely to be reasonable for him to have to do anything under
clause 6 without first getting that consent. But it is likely
to be a reasonable step for the controller of premises to ask
for consent.
Where common parts are
collectively managed by tenants, for example, through a company
or a committee, then that company or committee would be treated
as a controller of premises and be subject to the duties in clause
6 of the Bill.
Sub-leases
The Committee asked whether
the freeholder of property would be covered by the provisions
in clause 6 where a tenant occupied premises under a sub-lease
(i.e. where the tenant's landlord in turn had a lease of the premises
from a head landlord or freeholder - to whom ground rent was payable)..
The Department's view
is that, as the clause is drafted, a head landlord would very
likely be regarded as a person who manages the premises for the
purposes of section 24A(3)(b). This is supported by the wording
of section 24A(4)(a), where "let" is defined to include
"sub-let".. The section 24C duty could therefore apply
to the head landlord if, for example, a term of the head lease
made it "impossible or unreasonably difficult for the relevant
person to enjoy the premises".
"Relevant disabled
person" is defined in section 24C(7)(a) as a person to whom
the premises are "let" - which also means "sub-let"..
Thus, a sub-tenant could bring proceedings under section 25 DDA
against the head landlord where he unreasonably refused to amend
or waive the term in the head-lease concerned.
Towards Inclusion consultation
on reinstatement of premises
The Committee asked whether
the Government had taken any action in response to the Disability
Rights Task Force proposal that a consultation take place about
the factors in determining when it would be reasonable / unreasonable
for a landlord to withhold consent if a tenant wanted to make
an alteration to physical features (number 6.27).
The Government asked a
question about this as part of its consultation on Towards
Inclusion. A brief analysis of responses to the main legislative
proposals in Towards Inclusion is available on:
http://www.disability.gov.uk/drtf/towards_inclusion/TI_responses_summary..html
An unpublished statistical
analysis of responses to the question about factors is attached
for the Committee.
Part M of Building
Regulations
The Committee asked whether
Part M of Building Regulations made under the Building Act 1984
would apply in the case of a tenant installing a ramp to, for
example, a ground floor flat he rents.
Part M of the Building
Regulations has applied to all new dwellings since October 1999.
The Regulations require reasonable provision to be made for disabled
people to gain access to and to use new domestic buildings. The
requirements do not apply to extensions to existing domestic buildings.
Although not mandatory, Approved Document M provides guidance
on some building situations, including the use of ramped approaches.
The Approved Document advises that level access is preferred
for domestic (and non-domestic) premises.
Thus, the requirements
of Part M will apply to a ramp constructed when domestic premises
are first built, but it will not apply where a tenant retrofits
a ramp. However, Building Regulations do require that after
what are known as 'material alterations' of existing dwellings
the provision for access for disabled people should be no worse
than it was before the work was carried out. In the case of the
installation of a ramp, the provision for access could reasonably
be expected to be better after the work had been carried out,
even though the dimensions of the ramp might not comply exactly
with the provisions of Approved Document M.
Department for Work and
Pensions
26 February 2004
ANNEX TO MEMORANDUM
BY DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS TO JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE ON ISSUES RAISED IN RESPECT OF CLAUSE 6 OF THE DRAFT
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL
In total, 212 responses
to the consultation on 'Towards Inclusion' were received.
Question 26. Do you have
views on the factors which should be taken into account when deciding
on whether or not it would be reasonable for a landlord to refuse
to let a disabled tenant make changes to physical features of
the premises? (Para 3.83)
ANNEX TO MEMORANDUM
BY DEPARTMENT FOR WORK AND PENSIONS TO JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY
COMMITTEE ON ISSUES RAISED IN RESPECT OF CLAUSE 6 OF THE DRAFT
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL
In total, 212 responses
to the consultation on 'Towards Inclusion' were received.
Question 26. Do you have
views on the factors which should be taken into account when deciding
on whether or not it would be reasonable for a landlord to refuse
to let a disabled tenant make changes to physical features of
the premises? (Para 3.83)
| Body Representing Employers
| Body Representing Service Providers
| Employer
| Individual Disabled Person
| Individual Non Disabled Person
| Local Authority
| Other
Public
Body
| Self Employed
| Service Provider
| Trade
Union
| Voluntary Organisation
| Other
|
Total
|
| May devalue property
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 2
| 1
| 6
| 1
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 10
| 3
| 23
|
| Health & Safety issues
| 0
| 1
| 2
| 2
| 1
| 2
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 4
| 1
| 13
|
| Length of tenants stay
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 1
| 2
| 5
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 2
| 1
| 11
|
| Structural damage
| 1
| 0
| 0
| 2
| 2
| 0
| 0
| 0
| 1
| 1
| 3
| 1
| 11
|
| Grants for landlords
| 0
| 0
| 1
| 2
| 0
| 2
| 0
| 0
| 1
| 0
| 2
| 1
| 9
|
|
