Equality Should Not Depend on Who Can Endure the Most

The Equality Act 2010 promises protection from discrimination. For many people in the UK, that promise is being broken.

I have started this petition after my disabled daughter was discriminated against in a well known high-street store*. She was asked to prove her disability to access reasonable adjustments, despite her disability being visible, common sense did not prevail and my little girl was left humiliated and distressed. The company responsible for the discrimination have refused to apologise, acknowledge their wrong doing or demonstrate any meaningful action as a response to the incident. 

I contacted the Equality Advisory Support Service to seek further guidance. I was informed that there is very little more they are able to do to assist in this matter. The only remaining formal route available to me would be to pursue a claim through the civil courts.

I was also advised that there is no dedicated governing or enforcement body that actively protects disabled individuals when they experience this type of treatment in shops or other public spaces- beyond the protections contained within the Equality Act 2010.

In practical terms, this means that enforcement of disability rights relies almost entirely on the individual affected taking legal action. For many disabled people, who are statistically more likely to face financial hardship, health challenges, and barriers to accessing legal support, this is an unrealistic and daunting expectation.

Civil litigation is costly, time-consuming, emotionally draining, and legally complex. It carries financial risk, particularly when confronting a large national company with access to legal teams and substantial resources. This creates a clear imbalance of power; effectively a David versus Goliath situation, where the burden is placed on the disabled individual rather than on the organisation that may have breached the law.

I call this the ‘Access to Justice Gap’.

The consequence of this structure is deeply concerning. It creates a system where rights exist in theory but are difficult to enforce in practice. The Equality Act 2010 operates primarily as a reactive mechanism: action is taken only if an individual is prepared and able to initiate court proceedings. There is no routine monitoring, inspection, or automatic consequence for non-compliance in everyday service provider settings.

This inevitably deters many disabled people from seeking justice or redress. Those who are most vulnerable, most economically disadvantaged, or least able to advocate for themselves are the least likely to pursue legal action. As a result, discriminatory practices can persist unchallenged, not because they are lawful, but because the enforcement model depends on individuals having the resources, resilience, and confidence to confront large organisations in court.

This raises a broader concern about whether the current framework delivers meaningful equality in practice. A law designed to promote fairness should not depend on the personal resources, confidence, or financial security of the person it is intended to protect. When enforcement rests almost entirely on individuals initiating complex legal proceedings, equality becomes conditional rather than guaranteed. In this respect, the Equality Act, while well-intentioned and vital in principle, does not operate as an equal shield for all; particularly for disabled people who may already face significant social, economic, and structural disadvantage.

A constructive and proportionate solution would be the creation of a dedicated Disability Rights Enforcement Body, or a strengthened regulatory unit within the Equality and Human Rights Commission, with specific powers relating to disability discrimination in goods and services.

This body could operate similarly to existing regulators in other sectors. Rather than relying solely on individuals to bring civil claims under the Equality Act 2010, it would have the authority to:

·         Investigate complaints directly from members of the public

·         Require businesses to provide evidence of compliance

·         Issue compliance notices and mandatory improvement plans

·         Impose civil financial penalties for repeated or serious breaches

·         Mandate disability awareness and legal compliance training

·         Publish findings to create transparency and accountability

Importantly, enforcement could focus on systemic issues rather than isolated incidents, meaning one complaint could trigger a wider review of company policy. This would remove the burden from individual disabled people having to personally fund and pursue court action.

A further practical reform could include a low-cost tribunal route for disability discrimination in goods and services, like employment tribunals, allowing cases to be heard without the financial and procedural barriers of the County Court.

Such measures would not create unnecessary bureaucracy but would instead rebalance responsibility. Businesses that comply with the law would have nothing to fear. Those that do not would face proportionate, regulator-led consequences rather than relying on vulnerable individuals to challenge them.

This would transform disability rights from reactive, individualised enforcement into proactive, structured protection, bringing the spirit of equality closer to its practical reality.

Please feel free to leave a comment, sharing any negative experiences you, or someone you care about, have faced. All negative experiences matter and we need to make our voices heard. Together we can make a world a better place for people affected by disability: those who are and those who are to come. For the people who become disabled through illness or accident. We can no longer stand by, while front facing services that disabled people rely on, use discriminatory or borderline practices, with no consequences. END THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE GAP

thank you for your support 

 

endtheaccess2justicegap@yahoo.com