Mr submissions in this regard, however, concentrated on Schedule 4 Paragraph 2(6), Ogg’s namely, that the duty to make reasonable adjustments only applies if Royal Herbert had received request on behalf of the tenant........ to take steps to avoid the disadvantage or provide an “a auxiliary aid.” He relies upon paragraph 21 of the Amended Particulars of Claim which specify that Mr Plummer had: made a request for auxiliary aids in the provision of/installation of a stair “.... lift, provision of handrails and the provision of a shower seat.....” and Mr Ogg noted that there was no reference therein to a stair climber, pool hoist or box step For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Ogg also reminded me of the provisions of Schedule 4 Paragraph 2(8) that it never reasonable...... to have to take steps which would involve the removal or “is alteration of a physical Given that Mr Proudlock (quite apart from others) indicated feature”. that a stair lift might only be feasible by removing the wall at the bottom of the main flight of stairs and relocating the door this would, of necessity, involved the removal or alterations of a physical feature. Royal Herbert could not therefore be said to have failed to have made a reasonable adjustment with regard to the stair lift. Ms Casserley accepted that under this designation the removal of a wall to create sufficient space for a stair lift would involve the alteration of a physical feature. Her submissions in this regard focused on whether there were auxiliary aids without which Mr Plummer would be placed at a substantial disadvantage in his enjoyment and use of the club and, if so, whether Royal Herbert had failed in its duty to take reasonable steps which would have a real prospect of success of avoiding that substantial disadvantage. Reasonable Adjustment There was a significant disagreement between Mr Ogg and Ms Casserley as to whether the stair climber could be taken into consideration at all for the purpose of these proceedings and, further, a lesser disagreement, as to whether the installation of handrails might amount to an alteration and/or removal of a physical feature. Otherwise, both Counsel had competing arguments in relation to the adjustments to be made and/or the auxiliary aids to be provided.
Mr Ogg’s submissions in this regard, however, concentrated on Schedule 4 Paragraph 2(6), namely, that the duty to make reasonable adjustments only applies if Royal Herbert had received “a request on behalf of the tenant........ to take steps to avoid the disadvantage or provide an auxiliary aid.” He relies upon paragraph 21 of the Amended Particulars of Claim which specify that Mr Plummer had: “.... made a request for auxiliary aids in the provision of/installation of a stair lift, provision of handrails and the provision of a shower seat.....” and Mr Ogg noted that there was no reference therein to a stair climber, pool hoist or box step For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Ogg also reminded me of the provisions of Schedule 4 Paragraph 2(8) that it “is never reasonable...... to have to take steps which would involve the removal or alteration of a physical feature”. Given that Mr Proudlock (quite apart from others) indicated that a stair lift might only be feasible by removing the wall at the bottom of the main flight of stairs and relocating the door this would, of necessity, involved the removal or alterations of a physical feature. Royal Herbert could not therefore be said to have failed to have made a reasonable adjustment with regard to the stair lift. Ms Casserley accepted that under this designation the removal of a wall to create sufficient space for a stair lift would involve the alteration of a physical feature. Her submissions in this regard focused on whether there were auxiliary aids without which Mr Plummer would be placed at a substantial disadvantage in his enjoyment and use of the club and, if so, whether Royal Herbert had failed in its duty to take reasonable steps which would have a real prospect of success of avoiding that substantial disadvantage. Reasonable Adjustment There was a significant disagreement between Mr Ogg and Ms Casserley as to whether the stair climber could be taken into consideration at all for the purpose of these proceedings and, further, a lesser disagreement, as to whether the installation of handrails might amount to an alteration and/or removal of a physical feature. Otherwise, both Counsel had competing arguments in relation to the adjustments to be made and/or the auxiliary aids to be provided.