Back in February, I wrote “ Discriminating against the disabled in the supported housing sector… ” in which I described the attempt by Riverside ECHG Housing Association to force its disabled tenants to insure their mobility scooters (insurance for which there is currently no legal requirement), as property was being damaged by scooters. I disputed this at length, pointing out that it was blatant discrimination, as many other people could, and do, cause damage, as I’ll show you below.
They went ahead nonetheless.
The claim is, as I said, that scooters cause damage. Well mine sure as hell doesn’t – it cost too much to go banging it into walls. It’s the same for everyone else too
On my floor there’s a scooter (me), a rollator (wheeled walker), 2 powerchairs (one mine), and a manual chair. The damage, below, was caused by the rollator, the manual chair and the other powerchair – not mine.
Click to view full size, Back to return.
The wall damage is actually damage to the plaster, not just a paint scrape – that would be just too picky!
So based on this, why should I accept that any other alleged damage is caused by scooters – or even actually exists. If they want me to shell out for insurance (not gonna happen, but stay with me), I want to see incontrovertible proof that scooters are a major problem because, frankly, I think this whole thing is total bullshit.
As you can see, above, anyone who wants a scooter (they completely ignore those of us who already have them), is expected to “discuss the need for a mobility scooter”. With whom? I sincerely doubt that Riverside ECHG has anybody on their staff even remotely qualified to assess – well, let’s say me. Or anybody else for that matter, unless they recruit a doctor – personally, I need a rheumatologist, cardiologist, pulmonologist, gastroenterologist dermatologist, possibly a neurologist, and a general physician for all the non-specific odds and sods. How’re they going to roll all that up into one person? They couldn’t even get a consultant who’d cover all those bases – the whole idea is ludicrous.
However, it would be worth shelling out for insurance just to insist on my right to be assessed by someone who’s actually qualified to do so – set them back a few quid. Rules out the entire “medical” staff of Atos, I suppose.
We also have to provide “medical evidence” of our need for a scooter. Who pays? GP’s make a good living from writing such declarations, so who stumps up the £50 or more? Not this kiddie, that’s for sure. If Riverside want this, they pay – up front.
But if we have to provide evidence of our need for a scooter, a little reciprocity would be a good idea – like actually proving there is a genuine need for insurance, which I seriously doubt that they can do.
They also say only one scooter per person. I have a scooter and powerchair – how is that materially different? Once again, it’s discrimination against scooter users.
This whole affair is disgraceful, and I’m not sure it’s even legal, not without rewriting the tenancy agreements.
If push comes to shove – and I think I said this last time – they can take me to court. I don’t have the money to take them, but I can sure as hell defend myself against a clear case of discrimination.
In addition, I intend to write to the local papers – maybe the nationals, but there’s too much going on, I doubt they’d be interested – and the local residents’ association. See how much resentment I can drum up.
Back in February, I wrote “ Discriminating against the disabled in the supported housing sector… ” in which I described the attempt by Riverside ECHG Housing Association to force its disabled tenants to insure their mobility scooters (insurance for which there is currently no legal requirement), as property was being damaged by scooters. I disputed this at length, pointing out that it was blatant discrimination, as many other people could, and do, cause damage, as I’ll show you below.
They went ahead nonetheless.
The claim is, as I said, that scooters cause damage. Well mine sure as hell doesn’t – it cost too much to go banging it into walls. It’s the same for everyone else too
On my floor there’s a scooter (me), a rollator (wheeled walker), 2 powerchairs (one mine), and a manual chair. The damage, below, was caused by the rollator, the manual chair and the other powerchair – not mine.
Click to view full size, Back to return.
The wall damage is actually damage to the plaster, not just a paint scrape – that would be just too picky!
So based on this, why should I accept that any other alleged damage is caused by scooters – or even actually exists. If they want me to shell out for insurance (not gonna happen, but stay with me), I want to see incontrovertible proof that scooters are a major problem because, frankly, I think this whole thing is total bullshit.
As you can see, above, anyone who wants a scooter (they completely ignore those of us who already have them), is expected to “discuss the need for a mobility scooter”. With whom? I sincerely doubt that Riverside ECHG has anybody on their staff even remotely qualified to assess – well, let’s say me. Or anybody else for that matter, unless they recruit a doctor – personally, I need a rheumatologist, cardiologist, pulmonologist, gastroenterologist dermatologist, possibly a neurologist, and a general physician for all the non-specific odds and sods. How’re they going to roll all that up into one person? They couldn’t even get a consultant who’d cover all those bases – the whole idea is ludicrous.
However, it would be worth shelling out for insurance just to insist on my right to be assessed by someone who’s actually qualified to do so – set them back a few quid. Rules out the entire “medical” staff of Atos, I suppose.
We also have to provide “medical evidence” of our need for a scooter. Who pays? GP’s make a good living from writing such declarations, so who stumps up the £50 or more? Not this kiddie, that’s for sure. If Riverside want this, they pay – up front.
But if we have to provide evidence of our need for a scooter, a little reciprocity would be a good idea – like actually proving there is a genuine need for insurance, which I seriously doubt that they can do.
They also say only one scooter per person. I have a scooter and powerchair – how is that materially different? Once again, it’s discrimination against scooter users.
This whole affair is disgraceful, and I’m not sure it’s even legal, not without rewriting the tenancy agreements.
If push comes to shove – and I think I said this last time – they can take me to court. I don’t have the money to take them, but I can sure as hell defend myself against a clear case of discrimination.
In addition, I intend to write to the local papers – maybe the nationals, but there’s too much going on, I doubt they’d be interested – and the local residents’ association. See how much resentment I can drum up.