Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Refused Toilet Access - slightly different circumstances
66 Answers
Good Day! I generally understand how a merchant has every right to refuse access to their toilet facilities to a customer.
However, I'm hoping someone with a legal background may be able to take into consideration some additional circumstances:
My elderly father went for an eye exam at a High Street optician...just in fairness I considered whether it would be fair to name them. It was Vision Express!
During his eye exam he was asked what medications, if any, was he taking. Along with his anti-hypertensives he was just starting a rather strong diuretic. As he described it to me it has an effect to place one into a state of almost panic with the urgent/desperate need to immediately urinate.
He tells me that whilst undergoing his medical history with the ophthalmologist he told her the names of each medication and even alluded to the fact her needed to go but would endure.
The exam took much longer than anticipated as he needed to have some extended tests involving prisms ...(I'm pretty sure that's what he called it).
He had selected his frames before the eye exam and when he came out of the exam he was directed to a chair to have the frames sorted. He explained we was pleased but he needed visit the loo.
He says the manager told him, with a rather syrupy smile, that he wasn't permitted to use the loo. My father asked, rather excitedly why? The woman told him it was due to that ever-elusive and despised phrase we've adapted in this country called 'Health and Safety.' My father quickly retorted there was indeed going to be a health AND safety problem if he didn't go to the loo then!
'No, I'm sorry, you'll have to go elsewhere, I think the toilets may still be open further down the High Street,' She told him. (It was already dark so I doubt it.)
My father left instantly.
Sadly, his endeavours failed. My father is a kind, warm, and ever-so dignified gentleman who is incapable of saying anything demeaning about anyone! He was mortified, humiliated, and exasperated. He phoned me in distress, asking that I come immediately to collect him. He could not go inside anywhere and was standing outdoors in the cold as he waited the twenty minutes for me to drive to him.
Out of frustration and mortification he refuses to go back to buy his glasses from them, which I certainly understand. But he's also compelled to go back to collect his prescription so he can take it elsewhere.
I'm heartbroken for him. I can't imagine anyone being so callus and dismissive of his plea. Yet this soulless, gutless individual didn't give sweet fanny adams about his well-being. I think their behaviour is despicable, regardless of whatever absurd EU mandate our nation has fallen afoul of. It certainly isn't the Britain I know!
This clearly wasn't a 'personal injury' and if we were to phone one of those ambulance chasing places that bombard us with their stupid pleas about using the wrong ladder, having a ding a year ago, or whatever, we'd be laughed off of the phone.
So I'm not certain whether there is anything we can do at all other than name and shame these disgusting people.
I'd be grateful for any advice you might be able to offer.
Thanks!
FT+
However, I'm hoping someone with a legal background may be able to take into consideration some additional circumstances:
My elderly father went for an eye exam at a High Street optician...just in fairness I considered whether it would be fair to name them. It was Vision Express!
During his eye exam he was asked what medications, if any, was he taking. Along with his anti-hypertensives he was just starting a rather strong diuretic. As he described it to me it has an effect to place one into a state of almost panic with the urgent/desperate need to immediately urinate.
He tells me that whilst undergoing his medical history with the ophthalmologist he told her the names of each medication and even alluded to the fact her needed to go but would endure.
The exam took much longer than anticipated as he needed to have some extended tests involving prisms ...(I'm pretty sure that's what he called it).
He had selected his frames before the eye exam and when he came out of the exam he was directed to a chair to have the frames sorted. He explained we was pleased but he needed visit the loo.
He says the manager told him, with a rather syrupy smile, that he wasn't permitted to use the loo. My father asked, rather excitedly why? The woman told him it was due to that ever-elusive and despised phrase we've adapted in this country called 'Health and Safety.' My father quickly retorted there was indeed going to be a health AND safety problem if he didn't go to the loo then!
'No, I'm sorry, you'll have to go elsewhere, I think the toilets may still be open further down the High Street,' She told him. (It was already dark so I doubt it.)
My father left instantly.
Sadly, his endeavours failed. My father is a kind, warm, and ever-so dignified gentleman who is incapable of saying anything demeaning about anyone! He was mortified, humiliated, and exasperated. He phoned me in distress, asking that I come immediately to collect him. He could not go inside anywhere and was standing outdoors in the cold as he waited the twenty minutes for me to drive to him.
Out of frustration and mortification he refuses to go back to buy his glasses from them, which I certainly understand. But he's also compelled to go back to collect his prescription so he can take it elsewhere.
I'm heartbroken for him. I can't imagine anyone being so callus and dismissive of his plea. Yet this soulless, gutless individual didn't give sweet fanny adams about his well-being. I think their behaviour is despicable, regardless of whatever absurd EU mandate our nation has fallen afoul of. It certainly isn't the Britain I know!
This clearly wasn't a 'personal injury' and if we were to phone one of those ambulance chasing places that bombard us with their stupid pleas about using the wrong ladder, having a ding a year ago, or whatever, we'd be laughed off of the phone.
So I'm not certain whether there is anything we can do at all other than name and shame these disgusting people.
I'd be grateful for any advice you might be able to offer.
Thanks!
FT+
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FranticTraveller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Unfortunately, I think that the opticians is within their rights to refuse access - they don't operate a public facility - but they could have made a discretionary decision to allow it under desperate circumstances. If a company has a toilet it if for the staff, not the public
Not that it helps your father, but we are in a similar position here - there are two public toilets in our town which are closed at night, none at all on the seafront now for coach trips etc. The council is striking deals with local pubs and cafés so that people can go in there without having to buy. It's dreadful state of affairs.
There is nothing to say that your father has to go himself to collect his prescription - it's only a bit of paper - you could phone up and arrange to collect it for him.
Not that it helps your father, but we are in a similar position here - there are two public toilets in our town which are closed at night, none at all on the seafront now for coach trips etc. The council is striking deals with local pubs and cafés so that people can go in there without having to buy. It's dreadful state of affairs.
There is nothing to say that your father has to go himself to collect his prescription - it's only a bit of paper - you could phone up and arrange to collect it for him.
I'd write to the Manager (don't assume this was the person with the syrupy smile - she may just have been the person on duty that day) and if no joy write to the Head Office. Its unlikley they have a legal obligation to offer their customers toilet facilities but I'm sure the mangement would like to know they've lost a sale and a valued customer.
^ PS what you can do, if you want to, is to write to the head office of Vision Express, and see what their policy is under such circumstances. It may not make a difference now, but at least their HO will know and maybe have a rethink under situations like this. There's a mailing address at the bottom of this page - address it to the Chief Executive http://www.visionexpr...-services/contact-us/
agree with the above. You say in your question how you understand the merchant has a right to refuse, yet you then go on to complain about that right. Your father needed the toilet, but i suppose anybody else that is refused also needed the toilet or they wouldn't ask would they, so needing the toilet isn't really an additional circumstance (whether it's because of medications or just having drunk 3 pints of water dosen't matter a jot) I don't even think cafes and restaurants have to provide toilets for their customers, and there is no obligation on opticians to do so i reckon.
i don't really get why he didn't just go and see if the other loos were open!
PS the shop may have had a loo that was up four flights of rickety stairs, through their stock room etc etc
i don't really get why he didn't just go and see if the other loos were open!
PS the shop may have had a loo that was up four flights of rickety stairs, through their stock room etc etc
The opticians has no obligation to provide a toilet for the customers but they do have to provide one for the staff so they could have let the person use it. They don't want people wandering in off the street to use it, but a valued customer about the buy expensive glasses should have received better customer service.
Thank you everyone for your kind thoughts and suggestions..
Please, I think I should respond from the bottom up. Indeed, I respect a merchant's right to refuse. However, my 'exception to the rule' was as follows:
Nob-
1. My father was indeed a customer and a repeat one at that.
2. Although generally on the periphery, Ophthalmic processes are quasi-medical. Certainly (in a world of common sense), a prevailing belief would be that it's not only a kind consideration but perhaps a mandate that anyone who has been inside such a facility is prudent to at the very least wash their hands or be provided a disinfectant as we provide in our hospitals. Touching equipment, surfaces, etc., can easily expose someone to common eye borne infections. And lastly, he's an old man who had already been held there for an extended period of time - far far beyond the proposed twenty minute exam he was told it would take.
Birder - I agree. Simple concession for long-standing custom. Certainly not a real challenge there. Thankfully we have rights in Britain that we didn't have not too many years ago - the right of choice! I choose not to ever give you my custom again as I can now go elsewhere or I won't buy your ruddy low quality product as someone has made something far superior at a lower price!
Tops - Thank you! In the first instance, this is what I intend to do, but I wanted to examine remedies first. I'm marginally concerned that a response we may receive could be one of those form letters celebrating how much they value their customers and strive to ensure the best customer care is always provided and they'll most assuredly investigate and discuss with the manager the matter and by the way - go away...there's nothing you can do and nothing we're gonna do about it! (just thinking of the old BT slogan 'we don't care, why should we, we're BT!'
Thank you for your hard work to locate they addy and name. I will indeed pursue this...it just (quite literally) hurts to imagine someone else being treated in a similar manner. Yesterday I took my father to Spec Savers. Not mentioning anything about what had happened I nonchalantly asked whether I might use their toilet while my father looked at frames. 'Of course, it's the second door on the left,' was the clerk's response. (note to mind - no mention of Health and Safety violations there!)
Sibton - thank you. It was just sad and so mortifying for such a kindly reserved person. I was left to wonder about pregnant mothers - but surely there MUST be a law about that? ( say with trepidation!)
Maidup - My father confirmed that indeed she was the manager as he asked her if she could check with the manager. She stated she 'were it.' Lovely.
Tops (again) Indeed. It's an ongoing problem on the seafront and throughout the countries. Sadly, our councils first tried using blue lights to deter the drug users from shooting up in there, then the vandals, then the overwhelming costs won... transitions - we're all going through transitions and I should be ashamed for complaining about the long-dead days when chivalry, consideration, and human kindness prevailed!
Again, thank you everyone for your thoughtful insights. I'm most grateful...
Thankfully, I'm at home...I need a brief repose :-)
FT
Please, I think I should respond from the bottom up. Indeed, I respect a merchant's right to refuse. However, my 'exception to the rule' was as follows:
Nob-
1. My father was indeed a customer and a repeat one at that.
2. Although generally on the periphery, Ophthalmic processes are quasi-medical. Certainly (in a world of common sense), a prevailing belief would be that it's not only a kind consideration but perhaps a mandate that anyone who has been inside such a facility is prudent to at the very least wash their hands or be provided a disinfectant as we provide in our hospitals. Touching equipment, surfaces, etc., can easily expose someone to common eye borne infections. And lastly, he's an old man who had already been held there for an extended period of time - far far beyond the proposed twenty minute exam he was told it would take.
Birder - I agree. Simple concession for long-standing custom. Certainly not a real challenge there. Thankfully we have rights in Britain that we didn't have not too many years ago - the right of choice! I choose not to ever give you my custom again as I can now go elsewhere or I won't buy your ruddy low quality product as someone has made something far superior at a lower price!
Tops - Thank you! In the first instance, this is what I intend to do, but I wanted to examine remedies first. I'm marginally concerned that a response we may receive could be one of those form letters celebrating how much they value their customers and strive to ensure the best customer care is always provided and they'll most assuredly investigate and discuss with the manager the matter and by the way - go away...there's nothing you can do and nothing we're gonna do about it! (just thinking of the old BT slogan 'we don't care, why should we, we're BT!'
Thank you for your hard work to locate they addy and name. I will indeed pursue this...it just (quite literally) hurts to imagine someone else being treated in a similar manner. Yesterday I took my father to Spec Savers. Not mentioning anything about what had happened I nonchalantly asked whether I might use their toilet while my father looked at frames. 'Of course, it's the second door on the left,' was the clerk's response. (note to mind - no mention of Health and Safety violations there!)
Sibton - thank you. It was just sad and so mortifying for such a kindly reserved person. I was left to wonder about pregnant mothers - but surely there MUST be a law about that? ( say with trepidation!)
Maidup - My father confirmed that indeed she was the manager as he asked her if she could check with the manager. She stated she 'were it.' Lovely.
Tops (again) Indeed. It's an ongoing problem on the seafront and throughout the countries. Sadly, our councils first tried using blue lights to deter the drug users from shooting up in there, then the vandals, then the overwhelming costs won... transitions - we're all going through transitions and I should be ashamed for complaining about the long-dead days when chivalry, consideration, and human kindness prevailed!
Again, thank you everyone for your thoughtful insights. I'm most grateful...
Thankfully, I'm at home...I need a brief repose :-)
FT
Apologies...there were further comments being added as I wrote...
Indeed, my father was looking at the door marked 'Toilet' and not 'Private' or 'for staff use only' as he asked.
I reminded him of my life's adage: It is much easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission! ( I was trying to make him laugh...this time it didn't work!)
Oh how I hate this!
Indeed, my father was looking at the door marked 'Toilet' and not 'Private' or 'for staff use only' as he asked.
I reminded him of my life's adage: It is much easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission! ( I was trying to make him laugh...this time it didn't work!)
Oh how I hate this!
FT for future it may be worth trying to obtain one of these or similar, my late husband had one though for a different reason to your fathers. It was honoured most places he showed it.
http://www.bladderand...urces/toilet-card.asp
http://www.bladderand...urces/toilet-card.asp
it's is indeed a horrible thing to imagine ones father wetting himself, and getting upset about it, but getting all angry on his behalf isn't going to change what happened to him and just serves to get you and him more distressed. Just use a different shop in future, and perhaps he could invest in some incontinence pads, so he can feel more secure about going out in the future, and so he doesn't let this one experience stop him enjoying normal life
Going backwards again in responding:
Nob - there's no overt anger, merely exasperation over the situation. Absolutely!
What do I want? I want to know whether among all our daft new laws, rules, regulations and plethora of phantom Health & Safety laws which are as common as a belch, whether there is a provision within any law, civil or otherwise which will protect other consumers should they be placed in a similar position. That's all - nothing more.
Using a different shop is a given. I'm sure the passengers of the Costa Concordia are thinking the very same thing - 'Gosh, that Captain didn't make a very good decision' when he sent his Moldovan girlfriend onto the lifeboats before any of the other passengers even knew the ship was sinking. Yep, the right of choice - we've exercised it, thank you.
Boo -
Of course it would be nice to have a simple apology sent to my father and I have no doubt whatsoever one would be. But that doesn't assuage forethought that if this merchant as I described may possibly have violated any legal position as it means they will simply continue to do so until such time as they are told 'that's a no-no and you will stop this behaviour forthwith.' How many times did Richard Branson tell Lord King that he was to stop his naughty behaviour only to find it repeated? He finally had to take them to HM Courts to have them point out that this won't be tolerated in this country. Go across the Atlantic and become a politician if you're into nasties such as this!... and my purpose for posting my query here in AB was precisely for that sole reason - to seek advice whether anyone specifically knows whether any laws or business licensing practices were contravened by this business. I'm hopeful that someone who has responded is, in fact, au fait with this area of law.
Mamy - Thank you so VERY much! No, I have not seen one before and I will look into this tomorrow. I'm taking my father to the GP in the morning! Gain, thank you!
Cath - yes, I thought just the most basic of kindness, discretion, consideration is all that would have been necessary. He wasn't some odious cretin who had wandered off of the street reeking of booze and street grime - he was (and I do mean WAS!) a long-standing customer of theirs!
Again everyone, thank you for all your input this evening. this has been quite a learning experience being here...like a box of allsorts!
Thank you again!
FT
Nob - there's no overt anger, merely exasperation over the situation. Absolutely!
What do I want? I want to know whether among all our daft new laws, rules, regulations and plethora of phantom Health & Safety laws which are as common as a belch, whether there is a provision within any law, civil or otherwise which will protect other consumers should they be placed in a similar position. That's all - nothing more.
Using a different shop is a given. I'm sure the passengers of the Costa Concordia are thinking the very same thing - 'Gosh, that Captain didn't make a very good decision' when he sent his Moldovan girlfriend onto the lifeboats before any of the other passengers even knew the ship was sinking. Yep, the right of choice - we've exercised it, thank you.
Boo -
Of course it would be nice to have a simple apology sent to my father and I have no doubt whatsoever one would be. But that doesn't assuage forethought that if this merchant as I described may possibly have violated any legal position as it means they will simply continue to do so until such time as they are told 'that's a no-no and you will stop this behaviour forthwith.' How many times did Richard Branson tell Lord King that he was to stop his naughty behaviour only to find it repeated? He finally had to take them to HM Courts to have them point out that this won't be tolerated in this country. Go across the Atlantic and become a politician if you're into nasties such as this!... and my purpose for posting my query here in AB was precisely for that sole reason - to seek advice whether anyone specifically knows whether any laws or business licensing practices were contravened by this business. I'm hopeful that someone who has responded is, in fact, au fait with this area of law.
Mamy - Thank you so VERY much! No, I have not seen one before and I will look into this tomorrow. I'm taking my father to the GP in the morning! Gain, thank you!
Cath - yes, I thought just the most basic of kindness, discretion, consideration is all that would have been necessary. He wasn't some odious cretin who had wandered off of the street reeking of booze and street grime - he was (and I do mean WAS!) a long-standing customer of theirs!
Again everyone, thank you for all your input this evening. this has been quite a learning experience being here...like a box of allsorts!
Thank you again!
FT
Dear FranticTraveller,
A lot of people that require eye examinations do so due to illness or disease. They therefore should either supply toilet facilities or at least know where the nearest ones are. Especially disabled toilets.
I read about someone who if they complained would write to the CEO of the company. Long and short had poor service and I wrote to the CEO who contacted me personally. He offered me compensation which I turned down as my complaint was about improving their service and not personal gain.
Unfortunately people forget how hurtful their offish manner can leave people.
Love,
Gavin
A lot of people that require eye examinations do so due to illness or disease. They therefore should either supply toilet facilities or at least know where the nearest ones are. Especially disabled toilets.
I read about someone who if they complained would write to the CEO of the company. Long and short had poor service and I wrote to the CEO who contacted me personally. He offered me compensation which I turned down as my complaint was about improving their service and not personal gain.
Unfortunately people forget how hurtful their offish manner can leave people.
Love,
Gavin
Good evening Gav! Thank you for your kind words. I wish every business were as proactive as the one you've experienced! This isn't about compensation, in fact, my father would be mortified if he were to know I had written about his event publicly. I stayed with him the night this happened and he had been exceptionally quiet the entire time. As I tucked him in bed, he quietly said 'what would this have done to your mother had she been forced to live through something like this?' I can tell he's worried that others will be placed in a similar situation.
In the meantime I have received a note from someone who says she works with Disability UK. She points out that she doesn't have a law degree but believes that it had been established that my father is disabled and receiving DLA due to his kidney crisis, she believes the optician, which legally must hold a medical certificate for the practising ophthalmologists may have violated his rights. She's going to see if she can get some advice during the week and pass it along to me.
I think I mentioned earlier that this isn't about compensation of any sort. I just know my father would rest comfortably knowing that the embarrassment and discomfort he endured had an end value - that it would not be perpetrated again against another disabled person. I hadn't even considered the Disabilities Act and how an element of it might apply to my father's event.
Again, thank you for your insight and comments. I'm most grateful!
FT
In the meantime I have received a note from someone who says she works with Disability UK. She points out that she doesn't have a law degree but believes that it had been established that my father is disabled and receiving DLA due to his kidney crisis, she believes the optician, which legally must hold a medical certificate for the practising ophthalmologists may have violated his rights. She's going to see if she can get some advice during the week and pass it along to me.
I think I mentioned earlier that this isn't about compensation of any sort. I just know my father would rest comfortably knowing that the embarrassment and discomfort he endured had an end value - that it would not be perpetrated again against another disabled person. I hadn't even considered the Disabilities Act and how an element of it might apply to my father's event.
Again, thank you for your insight and comments. I'm most grateful!
FT
i know you don't like my answers (mainly cause you keep calling me nob) but aren't you just going a little over the top about this event? From your account, the optician pointed him to the nearest loo, but instead he chose to wait for you to come and pick him up. You also point out he knew the side effects of his tablets before he went out (so could have taken precautions such as popping into a cafe/pub before he went to the opticians or using pads). he could have walked out of the opticians sooner when he felt he needed to go. I hardly think they have "perpetrated" this on him. At worst they have been guilty of poor customer care, and probably have policies in place from higher up about people not using their loos for fear of someone suing them. I dunno if this is your first time on here, but you do get different opinions, some that you perhaps don't like - doesn't mean they are wrong though.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.