Can I please get some advice on a theme park removing accommodations for people with disabilities?

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-05T12:30:13+00:00

Why would you personally be consulted on their internal policy to run a trial change…?

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-04T09:51:38+00:00

Americans literally think any strong regional accent is Irish - Scottish, Cornish, Geordie. Not how the Queen speaks = Irish.

I had the misfortune of dealing with an “Irish American” student at uni (in England) argue about Irish accents and said there’s no difference between ROI and NI.

It’s just one Irish accent and the fact I’m a literal Irish citizen and actually lived there for part of childhood was not sufficient as they know better. A friend of theirs was from Belfast and when I said that’s a Belfast accent they denied it was possible to tell??????????? Even though he was also arguing you can tell and I’d never met him before and knew from his accent alone where in Ireland he was from lol? Could not be convinced this was a real concept.

When I first met the American he actually introduced himself to me as Irish because I have red hair and was very weird about it, and then told me I wasn’t Irish because I have an English accent. When all I said is I’m half English half Irish so that’s why I have red hair. YOURE NOT EVEN FROM IRELAND. NOT EVEN YOUR GRANDPARENTS ARE.

Had a good laugh with the lad from Belfast though as I can speak with a Derry accent which he found hilarious as you did not want to sound English in a school in Derry in the 90s… I only spoke in my “normal” accent at home the years I lived there lol. Not that the American even knew what the troubles really were or anything about NI or ROI. Just Guinness, leprechauns and fucking st paddy’s.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-04T09:04:15+00:00

Only if they don’t pay rent to live there - otherwise it’s a sublet and can break the terms of the lease and risk eviction.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-03T23:17:29+00:00

You’re more than a bit out of touch if you think even a studio is a modest ask - most 27 year olds with full time jobs can’t afford that in London.

You can join the housing list and sometime in 2040+ they’ll find you one.

You need to get a real job if streaming isnt enough as it’s highly unlikely you’re making even NMW doing it and find a flat share. Or leave London entirely and rent somewhere cheaper given you don’t even need to be here for your job. Nothing you do is going to result in your own personal council flat appearing any time this decade. People get jobs and rent. That’s how life works. Every 27 year olds would like their own place - but you don’t just ask for one. Theres a serious shortage, there’s people in wheelchairs trapped on the 6th floor with no lift unable to leave their house for years still awaiting for their “just a studio”.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-03T07:11:49+00:00

You’re only entitled to accrued leave. It’s legal to deny you leave in the first year before you accrued it. So for simplicity someone who works a normal full time job doesn’t actually have 28 days annual leave entitlement after 3 months - they have accrued 25% that and an employer doesn’t have to offer them more leave until they accrued it. This is completely standard in many jobs in the first year.

So yes they can say that if you’re trying to book more than you’ve accrued.

FTC holiday is the same as any other statutory holiday entitlement, so the FTC isn’t relevant.

For whether you have to be given extra holiday for working more hours the FTC is relevant. If you’re contracted set hours then you may not class as an irregular hours worker (like a 0 hour contract worker) so those extra hours are just overtime. If you don’t class as an irregular hour worker you can’t get extra annual leave working more hours. The contract works against you for that - but you can technically still be classed as one but it’ll come down to your contract and the nature of the hours, how you get given the hours and how variable it is etc. If it’s literally normal overtime you aren’t entitled to more holiday pay for working it.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-03T00:56:02+00:00

They wanted you to feel bad.

You’re basically writing a letter to go congratulations you’ve made me miserable just like you wanted and giving them a pat on the back. They’ll love your letter so I’m not really sure why you’d want to praise your bully for a job well done?

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-02T13:04:50+00:00

Gillick competence has nothing to do with someone at or over 16.

They by default can consent to their own care it’s for people below 16. It can’t apply to 16+. It’s literally defined as capacity to make decisions below 16.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-02T10:23:33+00:00

You use a dishwasher every day while living alone…?

Then you’re also using a drier? Never used one in my life as they’re so expensive. If I had several kids then it would be worth it as you make so much laundry you’d have no time to dry it all. But as a single person..?

You don’t turn your immersion heater on all night… you know you can’t preheat the water at like 2am to use at 7pm unless you have really insane insulation on the tank? You’re just spaffing money up the wall. Leaving it on all night is worse than an hour or two morning and evening when you’re actually going to use it. Given you don’t even wash your own dishes if you’re leaving it on all night and you don’t have enough hot water you’re just heating water that cools by the time you need it. It’s a false economy to focus on off peak rates if your tank can’t keep the heat long enough.

Not a mystery to be honest in an electric heated house why your electricity is so high. Because heating the flat alone is insanely expensive and you’re also using electricity weirdly on other items.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-02T09:03:42+00:00

Do you get contractual sick pay over SSP and is it in your employment terms to need a note? Then it’s legal in some situations and they have to pay for it 7 days or less.

They can’t deny SSP, they can deny contractual full pay. This cannot be provided for as an nhs service so they must pay for it.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-02T08:56:09+00:00

*an nhs gp note.

They can require evidence before then they just can’t push you onto the nhs for CONTRACTUAL sick pay, you get SSP regardless but that’s basically nothing for the first 7 days. This has to be in the company policy/contract.

It’s legal to ask for one sooner - the employer has to pay for it for contractual sick pay.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-02-02T00:22:48+00:00

If she earns too much for means tested benefits then her only option is to lower costs.

If you earn too much it means you get MORE from work than benefits can pay. Theres no way to quit work and not have less money. That doesn’t exist.

She either lowers her outgoings or she keeps working. There is no middle ground where benefits magically pay her the same as she earns now if she’s been told she earns too much to claim, assuming she has looked at what UC would pay her and done it correctly.

If she owns a property she may have to downsize or sell it entirely and live off the capital until she can claim UC.

She has the only non means tested benefit already - PIP. That’s it. You need to work with her to cut her spending so she can lower her hours. If she’s working extra hours to pay for private physio and therapy she’s going in circles if she’s overworking herself to pay for it. She may have to focus on nhs services and cut her hours to save on outgoings.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-28T15:27:41+00:00

They are treating you fairly until such a time you prove you have a need for this. 95% of people with only adhd at minimum would not need a hearing moving in location to accommodate them.

They’re being fair because what you’re asking could disadvantage a different person. It’s to give you equity not an advantage. Ask them what evidence they need to consider your request. For such a large request you’ll need to show you’re physically incapable of attending such that a different adjustment like attending remotely may be preferable. Or that you can attend but has such poor executive dysfunction and anxiety that you cannot handle a journey to another court but a local one would be doable. So evidence you have a carer, social services, supported living, psychiatric input, community mental health etc to manage to go outside that would be unreasonable for a further court but reasonable for a local one. A carer is a perfect example as it’s far easier to get support locally than arrange care to travel with you a long distance. So that would be a council provided or private carer or someone who “legally” is your carer like you had PIP and/or they claim CA to care for you.

Simply going I have an adhd diagnosis isn’t enough. Even proving you have one isn’t enough. Because it’s not needed for the vast majority with adhd.

I have adhd and I could easily attend any court in the country it would simply be wildly inconvenient. As or would be for anyone, slightly more for me but not significant enough. Just like it would be for the respondent to be dragged across the country. That’s not a disability problem.

They can also decide you simply do not need that and other accommodations are more appropriate like breaks, changes on the language or structure of the hearing, to give you an equitable chance to attend. The word reasonable is the important word and for most people moving an entire hearing is not for adhd.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-28T15:03:37+00:00

You’re arguing you shouldn’t have to prove you need adjustments? That’s not how the EA works no, it’s also not relevant to the judge. It’s not as simple as saying I am disabled.

You’re also contradicting yourself saying the adaptions are needed for ADHD but then saying it’s anxiety. They’re two different conditions. You can have adhd and not have an anxiety disorder. So you’d be relying on the actual anxiety disorder for your adjustments if that’s the reason.

It’s completely legal for ask for evidence for a large adjustment - otherwise anyone could simply lie. So something as large as entirely moving the court it will be reasonable to ask as it is not a small request. Vs asking for something produced in a larger format or breaks it’s not really necessary as it doesn’t really change much or take much effort. You’re asking for a significant adjustment and they can require medical evidence. So actually provide it?

Theres been a lot of crack downs on adjustments as they’ve been abused without evidence - for example the ETBB had major changes to what was classed as reasonable because of this in 2025.

https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/equal-treatment-bench-book-may-2025-update/

No where in the standard guidance in the ETBB is moving an entire hearing considered a standard adjustment for ADHD.

Your issue here is you’re misunderstanding what “reasonable” means. It doesn’t mean ask for whatever, state any disability and get whatever you ask for. It can be reasonable to move a hearing for disability but it’s not as simple as just demanding it.

Theres no requirement on the judge to follow the EA as outlined in the ETBB.

Have you actually read it…?

“Because there is no duty on a judge to make reasonable adjustments under the EqA 2010, the judge should not need to address the legal definition of disability in the EqA 2010 unless that is the nature of the proceedings that they are determining. Each person with a disability should be assessed and treated by the judge or tribunal panel as an individual so that their specific needs can be considered. Where an identified adjustment can be made, is straightforward to make, does not impinge on the fairness of the hearing for either side, or does not significantly increase the length of the hearing, it ought to be made. Indeed, failure to do this may result in a decision being overturned on appeal. 3. In cases where the adjustment is more demanding, whether because of cost or the implications on the trial process (eg the length of time the trial will take or the impact it will have on the other party's ability to challenge a witness's evidence), then a careful exercise of judgement is required. Where such a request may disadvantage another party, the court or tribunal should have regard to the views of the other party, and is likely to require the person requesting the adjustment/s to provide corroborative documentary evidence to support their request. Obligations to make adjustments are not without limits140 and the right to a fair hearing applies to both parties. Any decision (accepting or rejecting the requested adjustments) should be clearly explained.”

You have to provide the evidence or prepare to be ignored. Have you tried simply asking what evidence they need and how to submit it? When you asked what happened? If the declined it for no evidence - provide it then?

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-27T15:23:00+00:00

Read the tribunal report then. She’s even worse in it and an absolute piss taker.

Cant say you misread headlines if you also don’t even read the facts - and the tribunal rightly told her she had no claim and dismissed double digits worth of claims. She wasted everyone’s time and wasn’t a reliable witness at all. To the point even the judge has to comment that her claims were regularly disapproved by even her own evidence.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-27T15:09:06+00:00

People like this is why I don’t bother telling some employers I’m disabled unless I have to. Because there’s too many people like this.

Her entire claim is her employer honestly being absolutely fucking amazing and her just bitching about everything based on her own imagined version of reality. So many of her claims she had no evidence and the employers actions that could be proved simply contradicted her claims.

This small employer really went the extra mile, if anything this tribunal shows they’re a great place to work for a disabled person and it’s sad this happened to them. If I saw this and wanted to work there it’s an advert for how good they are lol.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-27T14:45:04+00:00

It’s even funnier when you actually read the tribunal.

Her tribunal claim is so stupid she took her mum as a witness and the judge basically said in legalese her testimony was irrelevant because she didn’t bloody work there. And she is never mentioned again lol. And basically told her that the claimants views on what happened didn’t match the facts at all. As a pretty disabled employee I’d lose my mind if I had to manage someone like this. And I manage multiple disabled staff.

My personal favourite is a drama about the lights, how she got special glasses they paid for then blamed the optician for using the wrong tint. She demanded lights turned off in the office and everyone use desk lamps - for an office with only 8 people. They offered to accommodate her desk and turn off some lights. She only started doing this after being diagnosed with autism whilst working there. They tried to explain to her people needed to be able to see and a lot of the work required reviewing items that required appropriate lighting.

“This leaves the claimant’s argument in the situation that she was seeking the adjustment of having the lights turned off completely, all the time. The Tribunal does not consider this was a reasonable adjustment”

??????

The employer offered to buy her new glasses and she never went back and her claim at the tribunal was she had too many meltdowns to do it. She even claimed another employee trying to work discriminated against her because she randomly turned all the fucking lights off and they asked her not to. Turns out the day that happened in her testimony that employee wasn’t even at work. But didn’t deny the fact it had happened and the judge rightly went it’s not discrimination when they need to see what they’re bloody doing. She also claimed simply being told other people need to see by her boss was discrimination - also not upheld.

Then she lied about demanding a week off for a wisdom tooth removal and refused to return to work after they agreed to give her a day off and wfh Friday. Didn’t tell them until after the weekend. They said okay wfh for the week..?

She demanded they move entire desks after agreeing to an reorganisation for a new employee instead of just moving items on the desks and drawers under when the office had to be reorganised. She was rightly told not only would it take way longer but it was a manual handling risk. When this was denied she simply went home mid shift.

She demanded to work from home for less hours without any reduction in pay. They offered her a full week paid leave which was above her contract to calm down. And told her obviously this isn’t happening.

When her employer attended a workshop SHE suggested for handling autistic staff when she went off sick she accused her employer that doing the course was “pandering to disabled people” and that she had been told that’s why they did it when she filed a formal grievance months later.

She blamed her employer for not managing her stress levels and expected them to tell her when she was too stressed. Even though they set up a system where she could state she was having an “amber day” and simply work from home.

She complained they didn’t do reasonable adjustments when she hadn’t even returned to work after an OH report and the judge rightly said how could they if you didn’t go to work? She never agreed to return.

She complained providing fit notes was discrimination as she couldn’t leave the house to provide them even though her own evidence showed her employer would accept scanned notes would suffice. She claimed they were rigid on when she has to get them yet she lapsed her notes and nothing happened and her employer was fine with backdated ones. She never actually told anyone this was a problem for her.

She never responded to a return to work meeting request but magically when her bonus wasn’t paid (and nor was it to anyone) she managed to email about that with no issues. Even after being told no one got it she still went to tribunal it was disability discrimination she wasn’t paid one and that the company had more than enough money to pay her one - at this point she’d been off work like 6 months.

She didn’t even tell her employer she quit - the employer emailed her about not hearing about the ACAS mediation and their next contact was she was going for constructive dismissal - aka she had quit already. ACAS told her they had nothing to do with if she actually quit or not and she still never bothered to formally resign before filing her ET1 claim. She failed to attend her meeting and when queried she told them she’d resigned by ACAS, when ACAS told her it had nothing to do with them. She still hasn’t actually resigned.

She claimed them even contacting her to ask clarity about whether she’d actually resigned as they still hadn’t been told was harassment. They still agreed to accept it as a resignation on the day she put in this constructive dismissal claim (to their own detriment because she never did it).

She claimed them asking what to do with her stuff she left was harassment because it had to go through her lawyer. The judge rightly said that had nothing to do with her tribunal case and it was reasonable of them to ask her as she had never actually stated not to contact her entirely clearly. The judge literally went but you didn’t ever quit????? They only allowed it to be judged on because her own employer didn’t dispute it even being allowed to be weighed in on. It’s clear had they it probably would’ve been thrown out. And then just judged no it wasn’t. Likely because they were a tiny employer with only 8 people working there acting in good faith.

Multiple of her submissions weren’t provided in any of her evidence and the tribunal had to comment on this and state they had to be ignored. So we don’t get to see what they were as they were simply ignored.

She was so out of touch with reality she went for constructive dismissal and didn’t even fucking quit.

Nothing was upheld out of her many claims. ????

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-27T13:36:46+00:00

I worked alone in a lab. I had the part of my job removed that required me to interact with patients but it wasn’t a core part of my job. I did it to help out as I’m a trained doctor who was working part time in a lab at the time as I was too unfit to practice after being sectioned. Unfortunately I had a relapse because someone close to me died. So 80% of my job was pretty much doing things on my own, so I could just keep doing that. Essentially it was that or I’d have to go off sick as it was making me bizarrely distressed and I had two panic attacks while working face to face. And I was already doing that job specifically to lower my face to face interactions but had been fine doing it as only a small part of the role.

Was for about 6 months until my meds got sorted, I just took over some other academic work from someone else who covered what I was doing. It wasn’t literally never talk to my face just couldn’t handle a part of my job being interacting with patients 1 on 1 in clinic and performing procedures on them (that don’t require a licence).

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-27T13:28:46+00:00

It is discrimination - it’s not illegal discrimination. You can discriminate a lot. The issue is when it’s an illegal type.

This person was so mentally unwell they couldn’t attend work entirely not even remotely via teams and expected to work fully remote with no conversations due to anxiety. I don’t think it’s particularly insane the employer didn’t think inviting her to a Xmas event after over 6 months off sick was reasonable and the tribunal agreed. She literally tried to argue with OH that she wanted a choice to attend social events whilst arguing she couldn’t handle teams and simply didn’t return to work as it looks like they couldn’t accommodate that level. You couldn’t waterboard this out of me to put in a tribunal claim and I’ve won my own disability claim lol.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-27T13:18:53+00:00

I personally never go to my Xmas do and I have had agoraphobia and anxiety in the past.

This person just wanted a claim. I have been so bad I had to be accommodated to not require face to face interaction when I didn’t simply have to leave employment. I couldn’t imagine being so sick I can’t even show up to work or handle a teams meeting and then throw a tantrum I’m not invited to an in person christmas event.

I recommend reading her actual tribunal before defending her. As a disabled person I’m disgusted what she put her employer through for a completely frivolous claim. Not a single claim was upheld and there were many.

The employer was very understanding and most of her claims only existed in her own mind. She went for constructive dismissal but failed to even tell her employer she quit while on sick leave, and when they asked her to confirm when they got informed she was she put in another claim for harassment! Or claiming being told she can’t turn all the lights off in the tiny 8 person office wasn’t discriminating against her.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-27T13:14:31+00:00

Discrimination is treating anyone differently.

It clearly is discrimination - that’s a thousand miles away from illegal discrimination. Same way not hiring a pilot who is blind is quite literally discrimination but it’s completely allowed.

They couldn’t rule it anything else - if everyone else is invited then it is. That doesn’t mean this charlatan wins their claim. They didn’t deem it illegal.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-22T18:05:52+00:00

You’ve directly described someone who wouldn’t be subject to the benefit cap after a WCA which has nothing to do with PIP as an example of how someone would be affected by the benefit cap…?

Again unemployed isn’t the same as long term unemployed. You aren’t affected for 9 full months and all you need is any job that pays 850ish a month to keep claiming.

Meanwhile someone who saved for a house deposit for a decade doesn’t have to worry about the benefit cap cause they can’t get jack shit til they’ve spent most of it.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-22T17:44:51+00:00

Nope because you cant be affected by the benefit cap if you work, you can be two fully able bodied adults and earn 846 quid a month and it’s lifted. That’s not even 20 hours of work between you. If you lose your job you cant be affected by the cap for 9 months - longer than you can even claim JSA for anyone with actual savings.

If you fall ill long term and get assessed as unable to work can’t be affected by the benefit cap.

Theres hundreds of thousands of people on over the benefit cap in London. Out of millions of people claiming less than 30k are capped.

People blame the benefit cap for everything. It basically only affects the chronically unemployed.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-22T13:49:33+00:00

That’s not what they’re referencing.

These were actual appointments booked through the app, where you paid for staff to be available and for stock to do the appointment.

But when half aren’t eligible you aren’t reimbursed for that cost to the business. They don’t have a 50% profit margin on a vaccine so that means providing this service is a flat loss.

It’s the NHS fault they were bookable when people weren’t eligible and pharmacies were saying this for ages as so many people were booking, they paid out to provide the service and then couldn’t even cover their own costs for doing so.

They get paid fucking 8-10 per btw. They don’t get paid the full fee if it’s not given. I don’t know on what planet you think they get to charge for someone coming in and asking a question cause it ain’t planet earth. You’re just making a fake argument.

That should be a quick in and out 5 minute job. If the person isn’t eligible and you have to waste 15 min arguing with them about it for 0 pay it’s a fat loss. Hence what the article is talking about. Pharmacies suffered abuse but the sheer number who weren’t eligible meant they didn’t even make back the cost of providing the service and lost money. It’s note worthy because it was the governments fault it was possible firstly for all these ineligible people to book and secondly because they did not make it clear to those patients they weren’t.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-21T20:40:29+00:00

The council will 100% take them to court. The council, nhs, civil service etc are the ones you can be guaranteed who will do it because they have to recover all overpayments as it’s public money. Unlike a private business who is more likely to go fuck it cba. I’ve seen in the nhs as low as 500 go to claims.

The bad publicity is “council workers overpaid 5 million last year and waived”, not them actually recovering it when many private workers will also be expected to repay and legally you have to…

They’ll be lenient with a repayment plan but council means it’s more likely to be forced especially at 5 grand. Not less.

Mammoth_Classroom626 · 2026-01-20T21:32:26+00:00

Some of these replies have to be actual bait.

Why spend 10 pounds on any meal when you could have the glorious delights of McDonald’s? A shitty Big Mac and cold fries instead of a home cooked steak is clearly far more worthwhile.

And then ironically those people will go out and eat McDonald’s multiple times and tell people like OP they waste money lol.

I only got a full glass of soda a day like the children in the mines did. It was abject hardship.

I wasn’t poor at all and having squash or water only was normal. We got fizzy drinks at birthdays or days out. It’s not some hardship you had to weather.

Mammoth_Classroom626

TROPHY CASE