| Short Title: | Disability Discrimination Act 1995 |
| Parliament: | Parliament of the United Kingdom |
| Long Title: | An Act to make it unlawful to discriminate against disabled persons in connection with employment, the provision of goods, facilities and services or the disposal or management of premises; to make provision about the employment of disabled persons; and to establish a National Disability Council |
| Statute Book Chapter: | 1995 c. 50 |
| Territorial Extent: | Northern Ireland (formerly in England and Wales; and in Scotland) |
| Royal Assent: | 8 November 1995 |
| Repeal Date: | 1 October 2010 (England and Wales; Scotland). |
| Repealing Legislation: | Equality Act 2010 |
| Status: | Amended |
| Original Text: | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents/enacted |
| Revised Text: | https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents |
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50) (informally, and hereafter, the DDA) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which has now been repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010, except in Northern Ireland where the Act still applies. Formerly, it made it unlawful to discriminate against people in respect of their disabilities in relation to employment, the provision of goods and services, education and transport.
The DDA is a civil rights law. Other countries use constitutional, social rights or criminal law to make similar provisions. The Equality and Human Rights Commission combats discrimination. Equivalent legislation exists in Northern Ireland, which is enforced by the Northern Ireland Equality Commission.
The Act was the culmination of a public campaign, and at least 100,000 people in demonstrations, to force the government to end state and business discrimination against disabled people.[1] While the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 guaranteed minimum standards for equality on grounds of race and gender, there had been very little concerning disabled people. Prior to the DDA, the first attempt to deal with the issue of disability was the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. This made it a legal requirement for companies with over 250 employees to employ a quota of disabled persons. This failed as there was not now anyone appointed to monitor these rights and as such was toothless.
The Act placed duties on service providers and required "reasonable adjustments" to be made when providing access to goods, facilities, services and premises. These were introduced in three stages:
The Act was amended by the following legislation in Great Britain (but not Northern Ireland, where different amendments apply):
The DDA 1995 departed from the fundamental principles of older UK discrimination law (the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976). These Acts, also repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010, made direct discrimination and indirect discrimination unlawful. However, these concepts are insufficient to deal with the issues of disability discrimination.
The core concepts in the DDA 1995 are, instead:
"Reasonable adjustment" or, as it is known in some other jurisdictions, 'reasonable accommodation', is the radical concept that makes the DDA 1995 so different from the older legislation. Instead of the rather passive approach of indirect discrimination (where someone can take action if they have been disadvantaged by a policy, practice or criterion that a body with duties under the law has adopted), reasonable adjustment is an active approach that requires employers, service providers etc. to take steps to remove barriers from disabled people's participation. For example:
The Disability Rights Commission's Codes of Practice give more information to bodies with duties on assessing whether a particular adjustment is reasonable. In general, the factors to consider would include:
Sometimes there may be no reasonable adjustment, and the outcome is that a disabled person is treated less favourably. For example, if a person was not able to understand the implications of entering into a mortgage or loan agreement, and they did not have anyone authorised to act for them, it would not make sense to require a bank or building society to enter into that agreement. The Act therefore permits employers and service providers to justify less favourable treatment (and in some instances failure to make a reasonable adjustment) in certain circumstances.
An example would be a medieval castle open for public tours that didn't have modifications made for wheelchairs. To do so would destroy the castle's historical aspects such as the restrictive nature of the original circular staircases.
The system of protection of disabled people, especially those with mental health problems to keep their homes, has been greatly enhanced by certain recent rulings in the UK Court of Appeal—City of Manchester v Romano.[2]
Under the act it is unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person by evicting them or subjecting them to other detriment unless justified under the limited number of justifications set out in the act.
In practice the only relevant justification is that the landlord believes and also that it is objectively necessary for the protection of the health or safety of the disabled person or someone else.
Where the cause of the taking of proceedings is e.g. rent arrears which was caused by the disability e.g. by Housing Benefit being cancelled through non response to correspondence and the non response was caused by the disability, then not only is it discrimination, but it is discrimination which cannot be justified on the grounds allowed in the act.
This applies whether or not the landlord knew of the disability.
This applies even if
the landlord has a mandatory ground for possession, e.g.
two months rent arrears or
two months notice no reason in cases of assured shorthold tenancy where the actual reason is rent arrears
the tenancy is one where there is no statutory system of protection, e.g.
where in LA temporary accommodation under the homelessness duty
the tenancy is a business tenancy
The tenant may counter-claim and seek an injunction restraining the landlord from continuing the possession proceedings.
The judges were very worried about the extent of the law and urged Parliament to change it. However, there has since been a new act of Parliament and there was no weakening of this protection.