Refused Toilet Access - slightly different circumstances

[FranticTraveller]

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+

[pastafreak]

>bednobs
pasta, just cause there is a door marked "toilet" doesn't mean there is a toilet directly behind it!<

Well-it's obviously what the OP's father thought!
I would have also. Put yourself in the mans shoes-try to think as he may have.

[FranticTraveller]

Again I'm grateful to everyone who offered their thoughts in this matter. Thank you very much indeed. I have received a call from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I had sent an email providing the same details I shared here.

They called to provide my father with a case number, explaining that under the Discrimination Act 2010, the provider held a Duty of Care responsibility in making a facility available, especially in light of the fact my Father had heretofore documented his medical history. In the first instance, one level of service exists for any licensed business which may in the course of a day interact with anyone legally recognised as disabled. An example I was given, which isn't really valid here, but helped me to understand, is if someone has a disability badge and thus has been validated as someone with a degree of mobility issues. The second however, is where the conduct of a day-to-day business has direct contact with individuals who have qualified medical issues. In that case, then a Higher Duty of Care prevails.

Had there been a previously posted sign at the entrance that forbade any customer from toilet access, then the matter might be debated otherwise. But in this instance, this is not the case.

Further, if the merchant directly provides services involving a requirement for a review of medical histories, direct contact, or licensed professionals in a medically related field, which he pointed out even extends to funeral directors, then the provision of a place to sanitise (that was the word he used), is required. I'm not exactly sure of how that would prevail in this instance, but I'm just sharing verbatim what I've been sent.

So, in short, they have taken it on as they feel, at this juncture, that my father's rights were violated by the Discrimination Equality Act. He added that the excuse of Health and Safety is nothing but bunk and was probably a catch-all used by the manager to justify why she was being so obtuse.

I hope no one else ever faces such a situation. I feel it's something our councils need to consider as well if they are going to persist in closing public facilities, especially on evenings when there are extended trading hours.

I wrote this not to solicit any response, I just thought you might find it of interest.

Ft

[fbg40]

FT
Brilliant response - well done !!!
FBG40

[smart1]

You can collect his prescription for him, then he has choices. I am an 'older person' and find this incident hard to believe. Not allowed to use the loo for health & safety reasons? Rather the opposite I would think, because what business owner in their right mind would prefer a customer peeing on the floor rather than use a convenience?

[mccfluff]

we do not allow customer's to use our toilets. to do so woudl mean going past reception into the buikding proper and thus be able to access other parts of the building. there is another implication i think to do with DDA but i can;t remember exactly what it was.

however i have instructed reception to use their discretion

[FranticTraveller]

Smart - spot on! It was just a tragic lack of judgement, which I suspect used all too often, possibly affecting others. It needed to be addressed at the very least. Interestingly, the DEO agent asked me what we were seeking. I said perhaps proper signage at the entrance that there are no facilities -even for customers, verbiage to say where the closest available facilities are, and mandatory verifiable sensitivity training for the office at the expense of vision express. The gentleman said I responded precisely the way he had hoped...whatever that means.

Mccluff - indeed, just a modicum of discretion is all that would have need needed.

Thank you