A mother of a child with autism who is a tenant of a local authority has been awarded the maximum compensation payable under the Equal Status Acts 2000 – 2004 in a disability discrimination claim. The claim was brought in respect of the mother’s application under the Disabled Person’s Alteration Scheme for an extension to provide additional required space for her son who has autism. The claimant was represented by the Equality Authority in taking a case against the local authority under the Equal Status Acts. An Equality Officer of the Equality Tribunal has ordered the local authority to proceed immediately either to
- to build a suitable extension or
- to re-house the family in suitable alternative accommodation in the same locality
The local authority was also ordered to pay €6,350 compensation. The Equality Officer stated that she would have ordered a higher amount of compensation but she was constrained by the legislation in the amount she could order. The local authority was also ordered to draw up a formal written policy in relation to the Disabled Person’s Alteration Scheme to include the precise requirements from applicants, detailed guidelines and appeal mechanism.
Mr Niall Crowley, Chief Executive Officer of the Equality Authority welcomed this landmark decision stating,“this decision will have major implications not just for people with autism and the Disabled Person’s Alteration Scheme but also for the mechanisms, policies and criteria used by local authorities and other decision makers for the processing of applications made by people with disabilities and others. Applications from people with disabilities need to be considered on an individual basis, taking account of all the needs and circumstances of the applicant with a disability. This case highlights an urgent need for formal and transparent policies, practices, procedures and criteria governing decision making by local authorities and others.”
The claimant lives in a mid-terrace property with her two sons and an adult sister. Her son is autistic. In 2001, she applied for an extension to her residence to provide additional required space for her son on foot of his disability. Her application under the Disabled Persons Alteration Scheme was refused. After two appeals, her application was approved by the Director of Public Health and Medicine in 2004. However, the application was accorded a low priority level. In 2004 the local authority announced a policy change in that it would no longer build extensions to mid-terrace properties, but would, where necessary, invite tenants to transfer to alternative suitable accommodation. The claimant was not transferred to alternative suitable accommodation.
The conclusions of the Equality Officer included the following:
- She could not accept that the manner in which the mother’s application was processed was reasonable or acceptable.
- The local authority has no formal policy criteria or procedures for the processing of applications under the Scheme and their method of prioritisation therefore lacks clarity and transparency.
- The child’s specific circumstances and needs were not properly considered by the local authority. Staff processing the mother’s application were not qualified in any respect to reach a number of stated conclusions in relation to the son’s disability and they did not seek the expertise of a person suitably qualified to assess the nature of the child’s disability. Recommendations of a number of qualified external professionals, in favour of the complainant’s application were ignored.
- Staff of the local authority compared the disability of the claimant’s son less favourably with physical disabilities. The fundamental reasons for the mother’s application were simply not taken on board.
- It was of considerable concern to the Equality Officer that the Council misrepresented the contents of the architects 2nd report. The local authority had told the claimant that the Architect’s Department had said an extension to her residence was not feasible. The Department had in fact stated that an extension seems feasible and should be costed.
- Following the report the Council decided unilaterally to transfer the claimant and her family to alternative accommodation but no offer has been made to date.
Niall Crowley emphasised that “the case highlights three barriers to progress for equality. Firstly, the local authority was not adequately aware of the provisions of the Equal Status Acts and was found to fundamentally misinterpret the key provision on the requirement to provide special treatment or facilities for people with disabilities. Secondly, the misrepresentation of the Architect’s Department’s report to the claimant would appear to reflect a cynical attempt to divert the attention of the claimant from achieving her rights. Thirdly, the absence of clear and transparent policies create a context where discrimination can all too easily occur”.
The claimant is delighted at the outcome of the case stating “I have had to fight for 6 and a half years to get justice for my son. The way in which the council denied a child with a disability his basic human needs has been a horrific experience for my family. I consider it a major victory that the council now has to write a policy document which will make transparent the procedure of administering the disabled persons alteration grant scheme. This will ensure that no family has to endure what my son and family have been subjected to.“