In the above case, David Allen, a sufferer of muscular dystrophy, was confined to a wheelchair and upon opening an account with the Bank found that access to the Bank’s services was impossible to wheelchair users. Access to the Bank was by means of steps, and the question put before the Court was whether or not the fact that the building was wholly inaccessible to those in wheelchairs, meant that this constituted unlawful disability discrimination under the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 – the crucial question was whether or not the Bank had failed to make reasonable amendments under the legislation, to enable disabled individuals to use banking services.

It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person in failing to comply with any duty imposed on them, namely, to ensure that it is not impossible or “unreasonably difficult” for disabled persons to make use of any such service.

Where a physical feature makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled individuals to use services, it is the duty of the service provider to take such steps as is reasonable, to either remove, alter or provide reasonably alternative means or services instead.

The Bank believed that in offering David Allen a combination of telephone and internet banking, they had offered reasonable alternatives. However, these are inherently different to services offered by traditional, face to face means.

In the County Court, the judge allowed the claim, awarding David Allen £6,500 in damages, ordering the Bank to install a platform lift. The Bank contested the decision in the Court of Appeal, claiming the judge had originally misdirected himself fundamentally. The Appeal courts disagreed, stating that as soon as the disabled individual was unable to access services that other individuals could do so at ease, there was an instant obligation on the Bank to rectify this in line with the prevailing legislation.

There were reasonable steps that the Bank could have taken to make such access possible, with the reason as to why they were not carried out being, not the disproportionate cost of doing so, but the fact they would lose the use of one of their eight interview rooms.

The effect of this Appeal decision provides “food for thought” to all companies and individuals who provide services. The Disability Discrimination Act is something that service providers will have to fall in line with expeditiously in relation to physical access claims, to prevent any claims of a similar nature being brought against them in the future.