04-16-2006, 01:55 PM
Dear Sir/ Madam,
Last week, whilst on holiday, I visited R***** T****** in Wigan with my son Alex and another family. It was our first visit to R T, and had come highly recommended. Unfortunately the visit turned into a distressing experience when Alex was refused access to parts of the play area on the basis of his autism. This was clearly unacceptable and a matter that needs to be addressed immediately.
There were three areas of concern here and I will address them separately.
1) The slide had unexpectedly opened, and Alex was one of the first children in line. The assistant at the top of the slide was unsure whether Alex had understood the safety procedures and wouldn’t let him ride until she had had clarification.
2) On the ground, another staff member decided he could not ride on the basis of his reduced verbal language skills, which are part of his autism.
3) Despite me asking several staff members how to get to Alex, I was ignored, and consequently it was at least 5 minutes before I could get to Alex, by which time he was extremely upset
Issues 1 and 3 are minor ones, issue 2 I believe is a clear case of discrimination and therefore unacceptable.
1) The first is more of a lack of information. I work with children myself, so I fully appreciate that health and safety considerations are paramount. In that sense the assistant responded correctly by questioning a situation she was unsure of, and I am not questioning her actions specifically. However, Alex is unlikely to have been the first child with poor verbal language skills to visit R***** T****** and he will not be the last. I would be more than willing to help R***** T****** produce a staff fact sheet about diversities such as autism to assist staff in the future.
I did note though that several very large boys played in the toddlers area for at least 10 minutes unchecked by staff. These boys were jumping on the bouncy castle and playing with the toys in a way that clearly contravened the public safety rules and put the younger children at risk, and yet despite being noticed by several members of staff, were not checked. Health and safety is very important, but I wonder why it was followed so stringently in Alex’s case and yet totally ignored when it was another child causing concern.
2) I found this decision to exclude Alex totally unacceptable. Poor verbal skills are not an acceptable reason to bar a child from using parts of the facilities. I am also unsure as to how a staff member on the ground was able, without talking to either Alex or me, to issue a judgement on his capability and a blanket ban on his riding on this basis.
R***** T****** have clearly displayed rules for use of the slide, and the lack of demonstrable verbal language skills were NOT displayed as a disqualifying criteria. Besides which, such an unwritten rule would not only apply to autistic children but potentially also those with hearing impairments, speech and language delays and English as an additional language. I note here that the member of our party with a fairly severe speech and language delay was not stopped from riding so this criteria doesn’t seem to be one that is universally applied, just in Alex’s case.
This discrimination is not only unpleasant but also illegal. Section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 states
(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person
(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public
…
(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 20 and 21
(a) the provision of services includes the provision of any goods or facilities
…
(3)The following are examples of services to which this section and sections 20 and 21 apply…
(f) facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment
…
Section 21 states
(1) Where a provider of services has a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of a service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to other members of the public, it is his duty to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to change that practice, policy or procedure so that it no longer has that effect.
Section 20 shows that
(1) for the purposes of section 19, a provider of services discriminates against a disabled person if-
(a) for a reason which relates to the person’s disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply, and
(b) he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified
(2) For the purposes of section 19, a provider of services also discriminates against a disabled person if-
(a) he fails to comply with a section 21 duty imposed on him in relation to the disabled person; and
(b) he cannot show that his failure to comply with that duty is justified.
Reasonable adjustment seems to be the key issue here. In refusing Alex access to the slide without discussion or any attempt to make even minor adjustment to accommodate him, I believe that R***** T****** has discriminated against him in a way that contravenes the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995.
It would have taken very little accommodation to allow him to access the safety rules, for example he could have copied the other children, or been shown the diagram or written instructions, or spoken to in very simple language. I would have been more than happy to assist, here. Of course it is entirely likely that he knew exactly what to do already. When I reached the top of the slide Alex was crying ‘I want to be safe, I want to be good on the slide’ which to me demonstrates that he HAD grasped the fact there were safety rules to be followed and would have been more than happy to follow them. Alex, like many autistic children, will follow rules to the letter… he would not have dreamed of going into the toddlers section, for example, because that would have been against the rules, and even his deep passion for bouncy castles would not have made him break that rule. It was very confusing to him when others did break that rule and remained unchecked yet he had to comply by an unwritten, selective and discriminatory ‘rule’
As a secondary issue, I note that your displayed rules state that the parent is ultimately responsible for allowing their child to go down the slide. In not allowing me to make or participate in this decision, you have also discriminated against me on the grounds of my child’s disability by refusing me normal parental privilege.
3) the third issue is another minor one. When a child is upset, I would have thought it common sense to allow their parent or guardian to get to that child as soon as possible. I could only see one entrance to where Alex was sat, and that was through a very small hole I knew I wouldn’t be able to get through- the slim 13 year old in our party had difficulty, yet despite asking several staff members how to get up to him, none would answer me. It was left to another parent to locate an entrance so I was able to get up.
If I had been allowed access immediately, much of the upset, and perhaps the entire incident could have been avoided. I cannot believe that Alex has been the only upset child at R***** T****** and so feel this reluctance was extremely unhelpful and made an unfortunate experience on Alex’s part all the more distressing.
Since this incident, Alex has spent a considerable amount of time repeating over and over’ I want to be safe, I want to be good’ re-enacting the situation with toys and writing down lists of the park rules in his attempt to understand what happened, and from his perspective what he could possibly have done to deserve such treatment. In short he has been considerably upset by the discrimination he faced while at R***** T******. He has written you a letter, in his own words, which I enclose.
My expectations as a result of this letter are as follows
1) A written apology to Alex. Please remember you are writing to a seven year old child
2) A written apology to me and the members of my party with assurance that such an incident will not happen again
3) A review of your internal disability discrimination policy, (with a copy sent to me) or, if the policies are already adequate, more staff training in the application of these policies.
4) If you have any formal complaints procedures, I would appreciate being sent the relevant information.
5) I re-iterate my willingness to assist in an information leaflet about autism and other related neurodiversities for your staff should you feel that this was helpful.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest possible convenience.
Last week, whilst on holiday, I visited R***** T****** in Wigan with my son Alex and another family. It was our first visit to R T, and had come highly recommended. Unfortunately the visit turned into a distressing experience when Alex was refused access to parts of the play area on the basis of his autism. This was clearly unacceptable and a matter that needs to be addressed immediately.
There were three areas of concern here and I will address them separately.
1) The slide had unexpectedly opened, and Alex was one of the first children in line. The assistant at the top of the slide was unsure whether Alex had understood the safety procedures and wouldn’t let him ride until she had had clarification.
2) On the ground, another staff member decided he could not ride on the basis of his reduced verbal language skills, which are part of his autism.
3) Despite me asking several staff members how to get to Alex, I was ignored, and consequently it was at least 5 minutes before I could get to Alex, by which time he was extremely upset
Issues 1 and 3 are minor ones, issue 2 I believe is a clear case of discrimination and therefore unacceptable.
1) The first is more of a lack of information. I work with children myself, so I fully appreciate that health and safety considerations are paramount. In that sense the assistant responded correctly by questioning a situation she was unsure of, and I am not questioning her actions specifically. However, Alex is unlikely to have been the first child with poor verbal language skills to visit R***** T****** and he will not be the last. I would be more than willing to help R***** T****** produce a staff fact sheet about diversities such as autism to assist staff in the future.
I did note though that several very large boys played in the toddlers area for at least 10 minutes unchecked by staff. These boys were jumping on the bouncy castle and playing with the toys in a way that clearly contravened the public safety rules and put the younger children at risk, and yet despite being noticed by several members of staff, were not checked. Health and safety is very important, but I wonder why it was followed so stringently in Alex’s case and yet totally ignored when it was another child causing concern.
2) I found this decision to exclude Alex totally unacceptable. Poor verbal skills are not an acceptable reason to bar a child from using parts of the facilities. I am also unsure as to how a staff member on the ground was able, without talking to either Alex or me, to issue a judgement on his capability and a blanket ban on his riding on this basis.
R***** T****** have clearly displayed rules for use of the slide, and the lack of demonstrable verbal language skills were NOT displayed as a disqualifying criteria. Besides which, such an unwritten rule would not only apply to autistic children but potentially also those with hearing impairments, speech and language delays and English as an additional language. I note here that the member of our party with a fairly severe speech and language delay was not stopped from riding so this criteria doesn’t seem to be one that is universally applied, just in Alex’s case.
This discrimination is not only unpleasant but also illegal. Section 19 of the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 states
(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person
(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public
…
(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 20 and 21
(a) the provision of services includes the provision of any goods or facilities
…
(3)The following are examples of services to which this section and sections 20 and 21 apply…
(f) facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment
…
Section 21 states
(1) Where a provider of services has a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of a service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to other members of the public, it is his duty to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to change that practice, policy or procedure so that it no longer has that effect.
Section 20 shows that
(1) for the purposes of section 19, a provider of services discriminates against a disabled person if-
(a) for a reason which relates to the person’s disability, he treats him less favourably than he treats or would treat others to whom that reason does not or would not apply, and
(b) he cannot show that the treatment in question is justified
(2) For the purposes of section 19, a provider of services also discriminates against a disabled person if-
(a) he fails to comply with a section 21 duty imposed on him in relation to the disabled person; and
(b) he cannot show that his failure to comply with that duty is justified.
Reasonable adjustment seems to be the key issue here. In refusing Alex access to the slide without discussion or any attempt to make even minor adjustment to accommodate him, I believe that R***** T****** has discriminated against him in a way that contravenes the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995.
It would have taken very little accommodation to allow him to access the safety rules, for example he could have copied the other children, or been shown the diagram or written instructions, or spoken to in very simple language. I would have been more than happy to assist, here. Of course it is entirely likely that he knew exactly what to do already. When I reached the top of the slide Alex was crying ‘I want to be safe, I want to be good on the slide’ which to me demonstrates that he HAD grasped the fact there were safety rules to be followed and would have been more than happy to follow them. Alex, like many autistic children, will follow rules to the letter… he would not have dreamed of going into the toddlers section, for example, because that would have been against the rules, and even his deep passion for bouncy castles would not have made him break that rule. It was very confusing to him when others did break that rule and remained unchecked yet he had to comply by an unwritten, selective and discriminatory ‘rule’
As a secondary issue, I note that your displayed rules state that the parent is ultimately responsible for allowing their child to go down the slide. In not allowing me to make or participate in this decision, you have also discriminated against me on the grounds of my child’s disability by refusing me normal parental privilege.
3) the third issue is another minor one. When a child is upset, I would have thought it common sense to allow their parent or guardian to get to that child as soon as possible. I could only see one entrance to where Alex was sat, and that was through a very small hole I knew I wouldn’t be able to get through- the slim 13 year old in our party had difficulty, yet despite asking several staff members how to get up to him, none would answer me. It was left to another parent to locate an entrance so I was able to get up.
If I had been allowed access immediately, much of the upset, and perhaps the entire incident could have been avoided. I cannot believe that Alex has been the only upset child at R***** T****** and so feel this reluctance was extremely unhelpful and made an unfortunate experience on Alex’s part all the more distressing.
Since this incident, Alex has spent a considerable amount of time repeating over and over’ I want to be safe, I want to be good’ re-enacting the situation with toys and writing down lists of the park rules in his attempt to understand what happened, and from his perspective what he could possibly have done to deserve such treatment. In short he has been considerably upset by the discrimination he faced while at R***** T******. He has written you a letter, in his own words, which I enclose.
My expectations as a result of this letter are as follows
1) A written apology to Alex. Please remember you are writing to a seven year old child
2) A written apology to me and the members of my party with assurance that such an incident will not happen again
3) A review of your internal disability discrimination policy, (with a copy sent to me) or, if the policies are already adequate, more staff training in the application of these policies.
4) If you have any formal complaints procedures, I would appreciate being sent the relevant information.
5) I re-iterate my willingness to assist in an information leaflet about autism and other related neurodiversities for your staff should you feel that this was helpful.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest possible convenience.