Hi Bernard
There are rare exemptions where a student landlord, in most cases the
University, can refuse to make an adjustment to accomodation. I've enclosed
a link which elaborates on the exemptions.
The HEI has a responsibility to make adjustments, and I would hope HEI's
have done, or are already doing this. The DDA is now 13 years old! It is
likely that it would be unlawful; if you have the time, it's spelled out in
the DDA (1995), s 20 (5). The cost of adjustments cannot be passed onto the
tenant i.e. student, and DSA does not,and has not existed to pay for
adjustments to accomodation.
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/yourrights/rightsindifferentsettings/housingandproperty/pages/rentingaproperty.aspx#Making%20reasonable%20adjustments%20to%20rental%20property
Best wishes
Chris
BERNARD DOHERTY
<b.p.doherty@BTIN
TERNET.COM> To
Sent by: [log in to unmask]
"Discussion list cc
for disabled
students and Subject
their support Re: BSL Interpreter costs -
staff." response to Chris Dunlop
<DIS-FORUM@JISCMA
IL.AC.UK>
08/12/2008 13:02
Please respond to
"Discussion list
for disabled
students and
their support
staff."
<DIS-FORUM@JISCMA
IL.AC.UK>
What an inventive use of FUD. The largest institutional assessment centres employ virtually no assessors except on the most casual basis. Their
work is paid for directly from the NMH of the students' DSA when they assess (i.e. the institution bears no part of their payment). Unless these
institutional centres employ more than 20 adminstrators, their position is exactly that of the independent centres. Alternatively, Bryan may be
arguing that the centres are subsumed entirely in their host institutions. In that case, the argument can easily be extented to insisting that
institutions should bear the whole cost of interpreting thoughout the student's course as part of a service provision. As Bryan has pointed out,
this is manifestly not the interpretation favoured by the framers of the DSA legislation. His attempt to argue for different legal positions for
centres does not stand.
Meanwhile, I'll be interested to see if Christopher's interpretation will be extended to accommodation costs, obliging HEIs to make provision for
disabled students without charging extra for it (and expecting the difference to be made up from the DSA).
Regards, Bernard
Bernard Doherty
Assessor
Cambridge Access Centre
--- On Mon, 8/12/08, Bryan Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Bryan Jones <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: BSL Interpreter costs - response to Chris Dunlop
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Monday, 8 December, 2008, 12:22 PM
In regard to DSA and the study skills and strategies assessment. The student is able to attend for an assessment because it is deemed that they
are eligible for DSA. The student in effect pays for their assessment and this is funded through the grant that they can apply for - the DSA NMH
allowance. The DSA NMH allowance is used to provide the student with the funding to meet the additional costs that they would not have otherwise
have incurred but for them embarking upon a higher level course. Therefore, the additional cost of a Sign Language Interpreter at the assessment,
that they are paying for, is also something that should be funded / reimbursed to them. On the other hand, provision of a SLI at the assessment
could deemed to be a reasonable adjustment that the Assessment Centre is expected to make, in which case the extension of this argument is that
such provision as a SLI and the cost of should be also be an expectation of the student’s university and not an additional cost that the student is
expected to incur. But as we know this is not what happens because when determining what is reasonable the “grants or loans likely to be available
to disabled students” is something that institutions take into account. See example below from the DDA COP.
Also, if Assessment Centres are expected to bear the cost of SLI provision there is the point made about a supplier with fewer than 20 employees
being exempt from this requirement. Private sector assessment centres without exception, as far as I aware, employ less than 20 employees, so in
effect this would mean we would have the anomaly that private sector assessment centres, would be able to levy an additional charge to cover the
cost of an SLI at assessment interview while the institution based centres (often operating as specific cost centre entities within their
institutions) could not. While at the same time the students teaching depts, often of the same institution as the assessment centre, could expect
the student to use their DSA grant to pay for SLI provision. I would therefore suggest that the funding logic is that assessment centres can
charge the cost of a SLI to the students DSA just in the same way as the student’s university will do so following the recommendation of that same
provision.
Example 6.8A
A deaf student on a degree course has been assessed as needing a sign language interpreter for all her lectures and seminars. It is unlikely to be
reasonable to expect the university to fund an interpreter if the student has the resources for this through her Disabled Students’ Allowances.
Bryan Jones,
Manager, Disability Support Services
& North London Regional Access Centre,
Middlesex University
Tel: 020 8411 5366
From: Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of amanda kent
Sent: 07 December 2008 19:02
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: BSL Interpreter costs - response to Chris Dunlop
Dear Chris,
I am puzzled by your reply. Are you saying that the cost of a BSL interpreter for assistive technology training is not something that the student
can claim through the DSA?
There is a difference between delivery/set-up and the training. The delivery costs (including the set-up explanation) are in the Equipment section
of the DSA but the training is in Non-Medical Helper section. Furthermore, the equipment supplier and the training supplier are not necessarily one
and the same.
I agree that the DSA should not be used to underwrite the costs or legal obligations of suppliers but this should be seen in the context of the DSA
as funding used to relieve the student of legitimate additional costs that arise within the context of higher education.
The Code of Practice on Rights of Access indicates that there are circumstances where additional charges are permissible. It says on p 168:
“10.49 A service provider can justify providing a service on different terms, including charging a disabled person more for some services than it
charges other people in certain circumstances. These are where the service is individually tailored to the requirements of the disabled customer. If
a higher charge or other difference in terms reflects the additional cost or expense of meeting the disabled person's specification, then that would
justify the higher charge. “
(Code on Rights of Access:
http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/drc/library/publications/services_and_transport/code_of_practice_rights_of_ac.html )
The assistive technology training is surely ‘individually tailored’? The concept of the tailor-made and bespoke training plan and delivery seems to
be an underlying principle in the IT training section of ‘Completing SLC DSA Assessment of Need’ document on the DSAQAG website.
(See http://www.dsa-qag.org.uk/content.asp?ContentID=77 , pp 16- 18)
The strategies approach in the ‘Completing SLC DSA reports’ guide seems to me to include the assumption that equipping the student means both kit
and appropriate training. From a strategies point of view, the BSL interpreter plays an essential role in facilitating a learning development plan -
they provide access to a detailed level of information exchange and this is achievable due to specialist skills on the part of the interpreter,
skills employed to meet the needs of the particular student.
The DSA Guidance Chapter for 2008-09 suggests that if equipment is provided for the exclusive use of the student and/or the associated support (in
this case training) is specialised, the cost is DSA-able.
134 “The following principles could be used to decide if the support is appropriate for DSA funding when it is unclear if the funding should be met
from the DSAs or the institution’s own funding allocation:
the support in question is not provided by the institution for all other students; and
the equipment is provided for use exclusively by the disabled student.”
135 “DSAs may be used only where a student is obliged by reason of his disability to incur costs in receiving specialised individual support.. “
(DSA Guidance:
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/studentsupport/administrators/dsp_section_115.shtml )
The Code of Practice Post-16 education suggests that if DSA funds are available, then the HEI does not meet the costs:
5.48 “Some disabled students following higher education courses will be eligible for Disabled Students’ Allowances, the specific purpose of which is
to pay for additional aids and services which students require because of a disability. It would not be reasonable to expect an education provider
to pay for the same aids and services for which Disabled Students’ Allowances are available.”
(Post 16 Code: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publicationsandresources/Disability/Pages/Education.aspx )
Using the sources above as a guide, I would conclude that BSL costs for training are DSA-able. From what you say though Chris, it looks like I am
wrong; I would be interested to know why. It is possible that I am confusing or conflating Parts 3 and 4 of DDA. Also I have a preference for
referring to Codes of Practice because they are easier to understand but of course they do not carry the same weight as the actual legislation; my
points could be countered using a more general rule of law approach. Furthermore, it is possible that my preference for a real-world orientated
strategies approach to the DSA is obscuring my understanding of an alternative position, a position that argues that the trainer should have
anticipated the need to provide a BSL interpreter as part of the service delivery.
Amanda Kent
DSA assessor
From:
Christopher Dunlop <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
Discussion list for disabled students and their support staff.
Date:
Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:56:41 +0000
Content-Type: ^ Z[BBBBBBH[X[HBBBB\H ܝ \ H \\] Y[\ ]\[\ \ Y H\YKBBH \ Y\ ]]\ [ [\YY\X^HHXH \YH ] H B []\ X [ \X\ [[ H[][] HXZH][B [X\XH\[\ BBH\[YY \H \ ܝ Y[ ]\X[]Y\[Y][ۘ[BYY Y[]\] N] \H [\ܚ]H H وB \ Y\܈ [\ܚ]H H ] Hو \ Y\[[[[ Z\Y[B؛Y][ۜˈBB\ \\BB \BBBBBBBBBBBBBB
*******************************************************************************************************
The information from the Student Loans Company Ltd contained in this e-mail is private and privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error be advised that any use is strictly prohibited. Please notify us and delete the message from your computer. You may not copy or forward it or use or disclose its contents to any other person.
As internet communications are capable of data corruption it may be inappropriate to rely on advice or opinions contained in an e-mail without obtaining written confirmation of it. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses, however we do not accept any liability or responsibility for resultant virus infection. Opinions and views expressed in this e-mail are those of the sender and may not reflect the opinions and views of The Student Loans Company Limited.
The Student Loans Company Ltd registered office is at 21 St Thomas Street, Bristol, BS1 6JS and it is registered in England Company No. 02401034, VAT No. 556 4352 32.
********************************************************************************************************
|
