University accessibility duties for disabled students

Short answer

There is no absolute legal rule that every field trip, laboratory, lift and teaching room must always be physically accessible in the sense that all facilities are usable by everyone in every circumstance. Instead, universities in England and Wales are under a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled students under the Equality Act 2010, and this duty extends to the physical features of premises and to activities such as field trips, laboratory work and teaching. What must actually be done in any given case turns on what is “reasonable” and on whether a disabled person would otherwise be put at a substantial disadvantage.

The legal framework

Universities are providers of education and are subject to the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 that apply to “further and higher education”. The key duty is the duty to make reasonable adjustments in section 20 of the Act, supplemented by the education-specific provisions in Part 6 and the detailed adjustment rules in Schedule 13.

The duty to make reasonable adjustments has three limbs:

1. Where a provision, criterion or practice puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared with non-disabled people, the institution must take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid that disadvantage.

2. Where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage, the institution must take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage.

3. Where a disabled person would, without an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage, the institution must take reasonable steps to provide the auxiliary aid.

“Substantial” means more than minor or trivial. A “physical feature” includes features arising from the design or construction of a building, from an approach, exit or access, from fixtures, fittings, furnishings, and from any other physical element or quality. Lifts, stairs, the layout of teaching rooms, laboratory benches and access to a field site can all be physical features for this purpose.

How the duty applies to physical features and premises

The reasonable adjustment duty in the higher education context applies to physical features of premises where those features place a disabled student, applicant or qualification holder at a substantial disadvantage. This covers the situations where a person seeks admission, is a student, applies for a qualification, or holds a qualification.

The activities covered are wide. They include all aspects of teaching and learning such as lectures, laboratory work, field work, work placements, seminars, tutorials and meetings, together with research activities, e-learning and distance learning, examinations and assessment, learning resources such as libraries and computer facilities, welfare and support services, catering, residential and leisure facilities, and access to the built environment and its facilities.

So laboratories, lifts and teaching rooms are squarely within the scope of the duty as physical features and as places where covered activities take place. Field trips are covered because field work is an activity to which the duty applies.

What “reasonable” means in practice

The obligation is not to guarantee that every space is fully accessible to everyone. It is to take reasonable steps to avoid a substantial disadvantage. What is reasonable depends on all the circumstances, and relevant factors typically include:

The extent to which taking the step would prevent or reduce the disadvantage. The practicability of the step. The financial and other costs, and the extent of the institution’s resources. The disruption caused. The availability of financial or other assistance, such as Disabled Students’ Allowance. Health and safety requirements. The interests of other students.

Because larger organisations with greater resources are expected to do more, universities are generally expected to have made significant provision. For physical features, reasonable steps can include removing the feature, altering it, providing a reasonable means of avoiding it, or providing a reasonable alternative method of delivering the service or activity.

The anticipatory nature of the duty

For service providers and education providers, the reasonable adjustment duty is anticipatory. This means the university must not simply wait until a particular disabled student arrives and then react. It must think in advance about the adjustments that disabled people in general may need and plan for them. In relation to buildings and facilities, that includes anticipating the need for step-free access, working lifts, accessible laboratory workstations and accessible teaching rooms, rather than dealing with each case only when a problem arises.

This does not mean that every building must be perfect, but it does mean an institution cannot rely on the fact that it had never previously had a disabled student needing that adjustment.

How this plays out for each example

Lifts and teaching rooms. Where a building lacks step-free access or a working lift, and a disabled student cannot reach a teaching room, the university must consider reasonable steps. These can include installing or repairing a lift, but they can equally include timetabling the class in an accessible room, relocating the teaching to an accessible building, or providing an alternative means of delivery. Providing a reasonable alternative can be a lawful way of discharging the duty where physical alteration is not reasonable, provided the alternative does not itself leave the disabled student at a substantial disadvantage or single them out unnecessarily.

Laboratories. Laboratory access raises both physical features, such as bench height and access to equipment, and genuine health and safety considerations. Reasonable adjustments might include adjustable or accessible workstations, additional support, modified equipment, or a differently organised practical. Health and safety can be a legitimate reason for a particular adjustment being unreasonable, but a university cannot use a vague or unassessed health and safety concern as a blanket excuse. A proper, individual risk assessment is expected.

Field trips. The duty applies to field work, but the nature of an outdoor or off-site location affects what is reasonable. Good practice, reflected in university guidance, is to discuss the field trip activities with the student in advance to identify adjustments, and to carry out a risk assessment covering what will happen if something unexpected occurs. Reasonable steps may include choosing accessible sites, providing support workers or transport, modifying tasks, or providing an equivalent alternative activity that meets the same learning outcomes. Where a specific location genuinely cannot be made accessible, the focus shifts to providing an alternative that is not substantially disadvantageous and that allows the student to meet the required learning outcomes.

The public sector equality duty

Most universities are public authorities for the purposes of the public sector equality duty. In exercising their functions they must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. This reinforces the expectation that accessibility of premises and activities is planned for proactively rather than treated as an afterthought.

Limits and defences

The duty is not unlimited. An institution is not required to take steps that are not reasonable. A step may be unreasonable because of disproportionate cost relative to the benefit, because of insurmountable practical or listed-building constraints, or because of a genuine and properly assessed health and safety risk. However, the institution bears the practical burden of showing that it considered adjustments and that what it did or refused to do was reasonable. A failure even to consider adjustments, or reliance on assumptions rather than an individual assessment, is a common way in which institutions fall foul of the duty.

It is also worth distinguishing failure to make reasonable adjustments from an ordinary practical or logistical explanation. Not every inaccessible room is unlawful. The question is whether, taking the provision as a whole, the disabled student was left at a substantial disadvantage that reasonable steps could have avoided.

Practical steps if a student is affected

If a student is being put at a substantial disadvantage by inaccessible facilities, the practical route is usually as follows:

1. Register with and engage the university’s disability or student support service and obtain a support plan or learning support agreement, and apply for Disabled Students’ Allowance where eligible.

2. Put the specific difficulty and the requested adjustment in writing to the department and disability service, referencing the reasonable adjustment duty and the particular activity affected, such as a named laboratory session, field trip or teaching room.

3. Ask for the adjustment or a genuinely equivalent alternative, and ask for any refusal and its reasoning to be given in writing, including any risk assessment relied on.

4. If the matter is not resolved, use the university’s formal complaints procedure.

5. If still unresolved after the internal process, a student can complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which can review whether the university acted reasonably. A claim of disability discrimination against a higher education institution can also be brought in the County Court, generally within six months of the act complained of, though early advice on time limits and merits is important. The Equality Advisory and Support Service can also assist.

Bottom line

Field trips, laboratories, lifts and teaching rooms all fall within the scope of the university’s duties under the Equality Act 2010. The university does not have to guarantee that every single facility is physically accessible in every respect, but it must take reasonable, anticipatory steps to ensure that disabled students are not placed at a substantial disadvantage, either by making the physical feature or activity accessible or by providing a genuinely equivalent alternative. Whether a particular failure is lawful depends on what was reasonable in the specific circumstances, including cost, practicability, health and safety and the resources of the institution, and on whether the university actually assessed and addressed the individual student’s needs.