Photo: Pexels
“We can’t afford it” is the answer I hear more than any other when an organisation is challenged on a reasonable adjustment it hasn’t made. The County Court decision in Plummer v Royal Herbert Freehold Ltd is a useful corrective. Cost, on its own, is rarely a defence.
The reasonable adjustments duty under the Equality Act 2010 isn’t a duty to do what’s cheap. It’s a duty to take such steps as are reasonable. Cost is one factor in that assessment, but it sits alongside the resources of the service provider, the practicality of the step, the effect of the disadvantage on the disabled person, and the service provider’s other ways of doing the thing. A listed building or heritage site isn’t excused from that analysis just because the works are expensive or the planning context is sensitive.
What Plummer actually tells service providers
Read properly, Plummer is a reminder that the reasonableness of an adjustment is assessed on the facts, not on a headline figure. A provider that wants to resist an adjustment on cost has to show why the cost, weighed against its resources and the disadvantage in issue, makes the step unreasonable. A bare assertion that the works are costly doesn’t discharge that. The same logic applies to a Premier League stadium, a West End theatre, a festival site, or a visitor attraction that happens to sit in a listed building.
The heritage context adds a layer, it doesn’t remove the duty. Listed building controls, planning constraints, and conservation issues are part of the practicality assessment, but they don’t create a blanket exemption. The question remains what a reasonable provider in that position would do, and how the disadvantage to disabled customers is being addressed.
The full article sets out the reasonableness factors under section 20(5), how the Courts treat the cost defence, the listed building interaction, and a practical review approach for heritage sites and venues.
Section 20(5) of the Equality Act sets out the factors a court weighs when deciding whether a step is reasonable. Cost is only one. The list also includes the extent to which taking the step would prevent the disadvantage, the resources of the provider, and the availability of financial or other assistance.
For heritage sites, the listed building regime interacts with the duty in a way most operators underestimate. The planning and conservation constraints feed into practicality, but the duty to find a reasonable way through remains.
The Access Advantage, Subscribers Only
This article continues in The Access Advantage
The full article covers the section 20(5) reasonableness factors, how the Courts treat the cost defence, the listed building interaction, and a practical review approach for heritage sites and venues.
Subscribers get monthly legal briefings translated into operational language, direct access to ask one question per month answered personally, and first sight of every tool and framework before public release.
Subscribe to read in fullFirst month free, then £14.99/month or £150/year.
Disability access consultant and Equality Act 2010 specialist. CEDR-accredited mediator. Founder of Strategic Access Consulting. Experience in Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cases, contributions to House of Lords and Commons Select Committee proceedings.
Case references are to publicly reported decisions. This article provides general legal and operational information and isn’t legal advice. For organisation-specific guidance, contact us.