Enforcement of Part 3 cases
through employment tribunals rather than the courts
370. The DRC drew the Committee's attention to
the small number of cases taken through the county courts under
Part 3 of the DDA. Only 53 cases were issued between December
1996 and February 2001,[428]
in comparison with 8908 cases under Part 2 from December 1996
to September 2000. The most recent research on the DDA refers
specifically to the continuing "paucity of actual Part III
cases, in comparison with Part II cases".[429]
Yet access to goods and services was the second most common issue
raised by callers to the DRC helpline, and a third of all cases
handled by the DRC relate to Part 3. A number of witnesses drew
the Committee's attention to instances of discrimination or refusal
to provide reasonable adjustments by service providers. The CAB
concluded, from the cases they deal with, that "there is
a need for …. strengthening the enforcement machinery".[430]
371. Witnesses cited evidence showing that the
court system presented significant barriers to disabled people
in bringing court cases under Part 3. These barriers included
cost, complexity, the low level of awards if the case was successful,
the time and effort involved, and difficulty finding representation.[431]
Because of this several witnesses, including the DRC, Action for
Blind People, RADAR and the DCC proposed that Part 3 should be
enforced through tribunals.[432]
372. The Law Society in their written submission
recommended that "further consultation is required on this
issue", that Part 4 cases "should also be brought within
the tribunal system" and "that consideration should
be given to the development of "equality tribunals"
in all discrimination cases".[433]
The FSB stated that, if the equal pay tribunal proposals were
applied to employment tribunals, they would not oppose DDA cases
going to employment tribunals rather than the courts.[434]
373. The Minister for Disabled People stated
that in her view there was not sufficient evidence concerning
Part 3 cases to conclude that the county court system was not
working well: "I do not accept the fact that there are far
fewer court cases under Part 3 necessarily implies it is much
harder to go to court. It might be that people do not want to
or they have dealt with their problem in a different way."
She added that the figures given by the DRC on the numbers of
Part 2 and 3 cases (paragraph 370) did not relate to a comparable
period of time. [435]
374. However, the 8908 Part 2 cases referred
to by the DRC were registered between 2 December 1996 and 1 September
2000 - a total of 45 months. The 53 Part 3 cases were registered
between 2 December 1996 and 1 February 2001 - a total of 50 months.
Thus the difference in time period makes the discrepancy more,
not less, stark. It is true that the duty on service providers
to make reasonable adjustments under Part 3 has only applied since
1 October 1999, and that this may in part account for the lower
figure. The second monitoring report noted this and also that,
because there is no national recording of county court cases,
the figure of 53 is almost certainly an under-recording. But that
report also drew attention to a number of factors which were said
to account for the lower level of Part 3 cases: the difficulty
that complainants had in finding legal advisers and representatives
who were willing to act for them in the county courts; the cost
of taking a case through the county court system; and the limited
amount of damages payable. The report also noted that many of
the legal representatives consulted expressed concern about the
lack of experience amongst county court judges of discrimination
legislation, a finding echoed by the third monitoring report.[436]
The third monitoring report concluded: "no evidence was found
of a major growth in Part 3 claims since 2001".[437]
375. There does, therefore, seem to be some evidence
that the current system for redress for Part 3 cases is not as
accessible to claimants as that for Part 2 cases - although the
Committee accepts that this is unlikely to account for all of
the differences in the numbers of Part 2 and Part 3 cases.
376. There is disagreement between the Government
and the DRC and other organisations about whether the county court
system acts as a barrier to accessing justice under Part 3 of
the DDA. Research seems to indicate that there are some problems,
but the Minister does not share this view.
377. Employment tribunals are more likely than
courts to have expert knowledge of the DDA (though not, of course,
of Part 3). The advantages of the tribunal system could be enhanced
if the proposed reforms of employment tribunal procedures for
equal value cases were adopted for disability discrimination cases.
378. The Committee considers that there is evidence
that the current system by which disabled people may seek redress
under Part 3 of the DDA is not working as well as it should. We
therefore recommend that the Government review this matter in
the context of current and future reforms to the tribunal system.
417 
