Oh yes it is Friday!:
Alison you said:
The issue about tariffs for ensuite and non-ensuite accommodation in most Halls of Residence is that the variation in charges applies to all students.
But the variation in need for an ensuite (as opposed to wish for) is Disabled students only. If someone is assessed as needing an en suite then they do not have the range of choice of cheaper accommodation, bit like saying you can enter the building via a ramp or stairs, to come in via the ramp it costs an additional £1.
Chris Baxter
Disability Service Co-ordinator
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of A Velarde
Sent: 16 December 2005 13:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ME/principle
Alison It would appear that the key point that would really hold up in court is your later point: "Given the institution's responsibility to make reasonable adjustments, I would advocate that the reasonable thing to do in this instance would be for the accommodation office to provide an ensuite room for the disabled student but charge as if it were a non-ensuite room", Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cox, Alison" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: ME/principle
The DSA scheme (flawed as it is) requires each applicant to 'prove their need'. It was those authorities (SAAS/LEAs) that I was referring to in my earlier remark. I still maintain that the original premise (claiming that a student has been charged more for an ensuite room because of their
disability) would not hold up. Humour aside, the first part of my response is the key: The issue about tariffs for ensuite and non-ensuite accommodation in most Halls of Residence is that the variation in charges applies to all students.
Given the institution's responsibility to make reasonable adjustments, I would advocate that the reasonable thing to do in this instance would be for the accommodation office to provide an ensuite room for the disabled student but charge as if it were a non-ensuite room.
Alison
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of A Velarde
Sent: 16 December 2005 11:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ME/principle
it is really funny Alison. I would agree if the law would not have reversed the burden of proof. it is not the student who has to prove it (*), it is the institution. So , I am afraid, the flush doesn't work this time! Andy
* Alison's note: "The student would need to convince the authorities that they would definitely have opted for a non-ensuite room if they hadn't had a disability".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cox, Alison" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: ME/principle
I can't believe I'm responding to a 'toilet message' after being quiet on dis-forum for so long. I must be having a Friday moment!
The issue about tariffs for ensuite and non-ensuite accommodation in most Halls of Residence is that the variation in charges applies to all students. So Andy's suggestion about the potential to claim discrimination for a premium applied to a disabled user in this case would be 'flushed out'
(sorry!) if it came to court. The student would need to convince the authorities that they would definitely have opted for a non-ensuite room if they hadn't had a disability. That way, it could be said that the difference in cost between the two was a direct consequence of their disability.
Season's Greetings!
Alison
----------
Alison Cox
National Co-ordinator/Centre Director, BRITE
c/o Stevenson College
EDINBURGH
EH11 4DE
Tel 0131 535 4756
Fax 0131 535 4880
email: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of A Velarde
Sent: 16 December 2005 11:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ME/principle
I gather the cost issue could be picked up by either/both the LEA (via a specific dsa allocation) or the institution. I guessit will depend on institutional reality and the extend of the funding. I do not have a fix idea about it. There is however a principle in play here. Whether an institution could charge extra for an en-suit bathroom to a student that has a type of disability that requires such a facility. It is my opinion that charging that particular student (or the funding authority) may be discriminatory if we extrapolate insurance case law (insurance companies were barred to charge a premium to disabled users). Please note that I am referring to an specific disabled student who requires the facility, not every disabled student and not every ME suffered too. Just a Friday thought. Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathleen Anne Darbyshire" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: ME
> The DFES notes for guidance to LEAs on HE Student Finance give the
> specific example of "Additional costs of en suite accommodation" as
> being something that can be met from the DSA General Allowances.
>
> Kath Darbyshire
> Disability Adviser
>
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person) please notify the sender immediately, delete the message from you computer and do not copy, disclose, distribute or make use of the information.
Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Stevenson College Edinburgh or commit Stevenson College Edinburgh to any course of action or legal responsibility.
This e-mail and any attachments have been scanned for viruses. However, Stevenson College Edinburgh does not accept liability for any harm that may be caused to the recipients system or data by this e-mail or any attachments. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers act 2000, all e-mails entering and leaving Stevenson College Edinburgh are subject to systematic monitoring and may be recorded.
This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University.
Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free. This is in keeping with good computing practice.
|