DDA complaint termination decisions: accommodation

Decline/termination
decisions: Accommodation

Summaries of decisions by
Disability Discrimination Commissioner or delegate to decline complaints,
and of the President of HREOC or delegate reviewing such decisions; or
(from 13 April 2000) decisions by the President or delegate to terminate
complaints.

Last updated: April 2000. Compilation and release of these summaries beyond April 2000 has not been authorised by the Commission

Requiring tenant to leave for unmanageable
behaviour not unlawful

A tenant complained she had been discriminated against on the basis of her
disability by being required to leave her home because of behaviour which
caused nuisance to neighbours. The Commissioner declined the complaint on
the basis that the acts complained of were not unlawful.  While he
accepted that the behaviour might have been a symptom of the tenant s disability,
he noted that

• there
  were substantiated complaints of causing damage to the proprety, subjecting
  neighbours to verbal abuse and entering neighbours premises without
  permission
• the
  accommodation provider did not have the expertise or budget to assist
  the tenant to remain at home while ill
• while
  the accommodation provider provided general support services to people
  with a disability, requiring it to provide specialist support services
  of the kind need by the complainant would change the nature of the service,
  which the DDA did not require
• the
  accommodation provider s lease was subject to repossession if there
  were persistent substantiated complaints about a tenants behaviour,
  and repossession would mean the premises were no longer available for
  other people with a disability. (30 July 1998).

Not
unlawful for hostel to fail to relocate toilet facilities

A
man with a mobility disability complained that he had been discriminated
against by a youth hostel's refusal to relocate the men's toilet from
the first to the ground floor during his stay. Confirming a decision by
a delegate of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner to decline the
complaint, the delegate of the President decided that in the circumstances
the relocation of the toilet would have imposed unjustifiable hardship.
He took into account that the hostel had advised the complainant in advance
that it occupied an old building with access limitations; that alternative
accessible accommodation had been available; that the women's toilets
were specifically equipped as such and were not easily relocated; that
confusion would have been caused to other guests by a relocation, and
the short term nature of the complainant's stay (28 April 1998).

Not
unlawful to require provision of own assistant

A
man with a mobility disability complained that a youth hostel proposed
to discriminate against him by requiring that he be accompanied by a carer
or assistant on his next visit. The delegate of the President confirmed
the decision of a delegate of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner
to decline the complaint. He found that in the circumstances, including
that the complainant was otherwise in the position of requesting other
travellers for assistance in showering and using the toilet, the provision
of accommodation without the attendance of a personal assistant would
have imposed unjustifiable hardship on the hostel (28 April 1998).

Reasonable conditions on tenancy not unlawful

In
confirming decisions by delegates of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner
to decline complaints, the President has decided that it was reasonable,
and therefore not unlawful under the DDA, to require a tenant not to create
a fire hazard (21 August 1996); not to create disturbances (19 May 1997)
and to maintain premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness (10 June
1997).

Disability
accommodation service complaint better dealt with by Community Services
Commission

The
parents of a girl with an intellectual disability, epilepsy and diabetes
complained that she had been discriminated against by not being given
the opportunity to move out of an institution into a group home, because
of higher support needs (24 hour supervision) due to her diabetes, and
by a failure to arrange alternative accommodation for the girl when it
became clear the institution was not meeting her needs. The Commissioner
declined the complaint on the basis that the matter could be more effectively
dealt with by the NSW Community Services Commission  (1995).

Rejection
of preferred design of ramp not discrimination

A
man with a mobility impairment complained that the body corporate of the
building where he rented accommodation had discriminated against him by
refusing permission to install ramp access to his flat. The Commissioner
declined the complaint. Evidence indicated that the body corporate had
rejected the design of ramp submitted by the complainant but had invited
him to submit an alternative design, which he had not done (1995).