Search results

This paper considers the funding of supported housing schemes. These are schemes that house vulnerable people with special needs in the community. The paper looks at why the future of these schemes has been threatened by a series of legal decisions interpreting the housing benefit regulations.The paper analyses the relevant regulations and looks at how they apply to supported housing schemes. It then sifts through the details of the case law and concludes by looking at the lessons that may be learned in the future.

One might be forgiven, I suppose, for querying the point of an article like this. After all, rent and property sales are VAT free. And as far as VAT on property outgoings is concerned well, that is just one of those unavoidable facts of life — an expense to be passed on to the tenant as part of the rent or service charge. That would be far too simplistic, however. Not all receipts arising from land escape VAT. Nor is it always possible to avoid bearing a VAT cost oneself — and that affects profits.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

By comparing the legislative regimes in different states, this paper aims to provide a platform upon which an agenda of “good practice” can be formulated and initiated in relation to the provision of access to the built environment for disabled people.

The paper utilizes a desktop approach to examine the various regimes. Particular focus is placed upon the regimes in the European Union States of the UK, Malta, Ireland and France and these are contrasted with those in the non‐European states of Australia and the USA.

The paper shows how the UK, Malta and possibly Ireland have attempted to take a path of amicable cooperation and negotiation to establish the principle of “reasonable” adjustments to improve access to new and old buildings, whereas France and the USA have tended to adopt a prescriptive course of technical detail and legal compliance to enhance access. The paper also reveals how Australia follows an intermediate route of cooperation and human rights legislation to achieve the same goals.

The paper places new insights into the public domain through the evaluation of the strengths and weakness of each approach.

This paper uniquely recognizes a number of mistakes that have to be avoided in future legislation and makes tangible recommendations on how to make further progress in the quest to make the built environment more accessible to disabled people.

This article examines the progress made in supporting people with learning disabilities to live in their own homes in the community over the past 40 years. The recent NHS campus closure programme has demonstrated once again that even people with complex support needs can have a better quality of life with improved outcomes in appropriate community accommodation. The article examines the work undertaken following Valuing People Now to develop the housing options of people with learning disabilities, including implementing a regional housing programme, developing a good‐practice toolkit for local authority commissioners and encouraging provider engagement. The barriers to progress are discussed, and areas are identified for future development in order to meet people's legitimate ambition to have a home of their own.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

Before turning our attention to the recent developments in employment of the disabled and becoming familiar with these developments, it is important to define what the words disability and handicap mean in general. The majority of us use these two words interchangeably. There is, however, a difference in the meanings that should be understood before any further examination into the topic is made. Disability is the functional limitation within the individual that is caused by physical, mental, or sensory impairments; handicap is the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the normal life of the community on an equal level with others due to physical and social barriers [5]. Until the end of 1992, over 251,000,000 persons were classified as disabled in the United States. Males account for 49%, while females make up 51% of this population. There is also a strong relationship between age and the likelihood of a disability. Persons 65 years and over made up 12.2% of the total population, but they accounted for 33.8% of all persons with a disability. Persons with low incomes are more likely to have disabilities than persons with high incomes. As far as employment goes, the employment rate among both sexes for persons with no disability was 80.5%, but the rate was 24.1% for disabled persons [5]. People with disabilities have unfortunately not been part of the American mainstream and are still excluded from full participation in society. Millions are seeking employment so they too can earn a living and become socially and economically independent. Such employment statistics brought about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA is the most significant federal civil rights legislation that has affected and will continue to affect private employers since the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was signed by President Bush on July 26,1990. For employers with 25 or more employees, the ADA went into effect July 26, 1992; and for employers with 15–24 employees, it went into effect on July 26,1994. Companies with less than 15 employees are exempt from the job‐bias rules. Stated in the most simple terms, the ADA will prohibit discrimination in employment and in access to public services based upon disability. Employers must now provide reasonable accommodation to disabled employees and applicants as long as this does not inflict undue hardship on the business. Three major barriers currently exist for working‐aged disabled people: discrimination, lack of employment opportunities, and places with reasonable accommodations for the disabled.

This paper aims to explore the place of disabled guests in the new world of hotel and holiday accommodation shaped by the sharing economy.

The paper uses Levitas’s (2013) Utopia as Method as a methodological tool to develop the hypothetical future scenarios, which are used to explore the place of disabled guests in peer-to-peer holiday accommodation.

Analysis of the hypothetical scenarios suggests that without state intervention, the place of disabled guests in both traditional hotels and peer-to-peer holiday accommodation is far from secure.

This is a new area and the authors’ discussion is therefore tentative in its intent.

Planners and policymakers should consult with, and take account of, the needs of disabled people and other socially excluded groups when regulating shared economy enterprises. It may be helpful to put in place broader legislation for social inclusion rather than regulate peer-to-peer platforms. Any recourse to markets as a means of resolving access issues needs also to acknowledge the limited power of socially excluded groups within both traditional and sharing economy markets.

The hypothetical scenarios discussed within this paper offer planners, policymakers and tourism stakeholders opportunities to think through the access and inclusion needs of disabled guests in the shared economy sector.

The paper extends discussion of hospitality and disability access to include shared economy approaches and the place of disabled guests in the new world of holiday accommodation shaped by the sharing economy.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.