Placement provider duty to implement disability adjustments

Short answer

There is no single rule that a placement provider must automatically implement whatever adjustments a university has decided upon. The position is more layered than that. A placement provider is not legally bound simply because the university has recorded an adjustment in a student support plan. However, both the university and, in many cases, the placement provider owe their own duties under the Equality Act 2010, and in practice a suitable placement provider will usually need to put appropriate adjustments in place either because the law requires it of them directly or because the university’s own duties oblige it to secure that outcome.

The university’s duty

Under Part 6 of the Equality Act 2010, a university is a “responsible body” and owes duties to its disabled students, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments set out in Schedule 13. Importantly, this duty is anticipatory. The university must think ahead about the barriers disabled students may face, including on any placement that forms part of the course, rather than waiting for a problem to arise.

Where a placement is part of the programme of study, the placement experience is part of the education the university is providing. The university therefore cannot simply hand the student to a placement provider and treat the reasonable adjustment duty as having ended. It should identify what adjustments a disabled student needs, discuss practical arrangements in advance, and work with the placement provider to ensure that effective adjustments are in place. The OIA Good Practice Framework and the QAA guidance both reflect this expectation that institutions engage with placement hosts before the placement begins so that obstacles are identified and adjustments arranged.

If a placement provider refuses to accommodate a disabled student and the university does nothing, or fails to find an alternative or to press for adjustments, the failing may rest with the university under its anticipatory duty, not only with the provider.

The placement provider’s own duties

Whether the placement provider itself has a direct legal duty depends on the nature of the placement and the relationship, so the facts matter.

If the student is effectively working for the provider in a way that resembles employment or contract work, the employment provisions in Part 5 of the Equality Act can apply. The concept of work is interpreted broadly and can catch work experience and placements. If Part 5 applies, the provider owes its own duty to make reasonable adjustments as if it were an employer, and cannot rely on the university’s arrangements to discharge that duty.

If the placement provider is delivering a service, providing vocational training, or acting as a body whose activities fall within Part 3 (services and public functions) or the further and higher education provisions, it may owe reasonable adjustment duties in that capacity instead. Public bodies also owe the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149, which shapes how they should approach disabled placement students.

The practical point is that a placement provider is not free to disregard a disabled student’s needs on the basis that adjustments are “the university’s problem”. Depending on the arrangement, the provider frequently has an independent legal obligation of its own.

Why the provider is not simply bound by the university’s list

Two things follow from this structure. First, the reasonable adjustment duty is owed by each body in respect of its own arrangements. The reasonableness of a given adjustment is judged against that body’s resources, activities and circumstances. An adjustment that is reasonable in a university teaching context is not automatically reasonable, or even possible, in a particular workplace. For example, extended deadlines or a note-taker may make sense at university, whereas a placement setting may require different measures such as altered duties, adapted equipment, flexible hours or a modified environment.

Second, what counts as reasonable for the provider takes account of legitimate operational factors, including health and safety, the practicality of the change, cost, and the effect on the service or business. A refusal to adopt a specific measure is not automatically unlawful if the provider can show it was not reasonable in its context, particularly where an equally effective alternative adjustment is offered. There can also be ordinary practical reasons why a specific adjustment cannot be replicated on placement, such as regulated professional standards, safety-critical requirements, or the physical constraints of the site. That is not necessarily discrimination; it may simply mean a different but equally effective adjustment is needed.

How this works in practice

In a typical course placement the sensible sequence is as follows.

1. The student discloses their disability and needs to the university (and, with consent, to the placement provider). Adjustments cannot be anticipated properly without this, and the university should not share medical information with the host without the student’s consent.

2. The university, student and provider discuss the placement in advance and identify the barriers and the adjustments that would remove them. This is where the university’s anticipatory duty and the provider’s own duty come together.

3. The parties agree the adjustments that are reasonable in the placement context. These may differ from the on-campus adjustments, and the aim is an effective outcome rather than a verbatim transfer of the university’s support plan.

4. If a particular adjustment is genuinely not workable for the provider, the focus should shift to alternative adjustments or, if necessary, an alternative placement, so that the disabled student is not placed at a substantial disadvantage.

If adjustments are refused

If a placement provider refuses reasonable adjustments and the student is disadvantaged, the possible routes depend on where the duty lay.

Raise it first with the university’s disability or placement support team, since the university has continuing responsibilities and can intervene, press the provider, or arrange an alternative placement. If the university mishandles this, its internal complaints procedure applies, and once that is exhausted a student can usually take the complaint to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

Where the placement provider owed and breached its own Equality Act duty, a discrimination claim against the provider may be possible, but the correct forum and time limits differ depending on whether the claim falls under the employment provisions or the services and education provisions. Employment-type claims go to the Employment Tribunal and are subject to a short time limit, generally three months, while services and education claims are dealt with in the civil courts with a longer limitation period. Getting the characterisation right matters, so the underlying facts of the relationship need to be pinned down.

Key facts that change the answer

The outcome turns on several points that are worth clarifying in any specific situation. It matters whether the placement is a formal part of the accredited course or something more informal. It matters whether the student is doing genuine work for the provider or simply observing. It matters what the specific adjustment is and why the provider says it cannot be implemented. And it matters whether an equally effective alternative adjustment was offered. Different answers on these points can move the responsibility between the university and the provider and change whether a refusal is lawful.

Bottom line

A placement provider is not automatically obliged to implement the university’s list of adjustments as such, but it usually cannot ignore a disabled student’s needs either. The university retains an anticipatory duty to secure effective adjustments on placement, and the placement provider will often owe an independent reasonable adjustment duty of its own under the Equality Act 2010, judged against its own circumstances. The goal the law aims at is that a disabled student is not placed at a substantial disadvantage on placement, achieved through adjustments that are effective and reasonable in the placement setting, even if they are not identical to those provided on campus.