“A decision which has been welcomed by groups representing the disabled sends a clear warning to businesses that fail to take seriously their responsibilities as service providers under the Disability Discrimination Act,” says MSB Solicitors.

A 17-year-old disabled man from Sheffield secured the landmark legal victory against the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) on account of its failure to make adjustments to one of its branches in order to accommodate members of the public with impaired mobility.

David Allen was diagnosed with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy at an early age and uses an electric wheelchair. When he was nine years old, RBS visited his primary school and offered a free electronic organiser to anyone who opened an account with them. As he was keen to have the gadget, an account was opened for Mr Allen at the bank’s Church Street branch in Sheffield.

When Mr Allen later began receiving Disability Living Allowance, this was paid into his RBS account. The bank’s website indicated that wheelchair access was available at the Church Street branch and the branch displayed a sign advertising the fact. However, Mr Allen found that this was not in fact the case and he was unable to enter the premises. In response to a letter to the bank’s Complaints Department, he was told that he could use the staff entrance for access to the building, ‘like other disabled customers’, but this turned out not to be possible. Furthermore, the cash point machines at the branch were inaccessible to Mr Allen. RBS did offer him Internet or telephone banking and also suggested he use other branches with easier access, but this would have meant either taking a ten mile bus journey or relying on other people for transport. Mr Allen was also told that he could use a nearby NatWest branch instead, but when he attempted to do so he was told that his bank card could not be used there as the computer systems were not compatible.

When Mr Allen opened a savings account at the Church Street branch, a member of staff discussed the details with him and completed the paperwork on the pavement. The bank asserted that this constituted better treatment than that offered to other bank customers.

With the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Mr Allen brought a claim against RBS for disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Sheffield County Court found that RBS had discriminated against Mr Allen by not providing physical access to wheelchair users of the branch. Although the building was listed, planning permission for a platform lift had been granted and RBS itself agreed that cost was not the issue. The Court judged that the bank had not properly considered making the necessary adjustments and had not justified its failure to do so. In its view, the bank had declined to consider sanctioning the loss of one of its ground floor interview rooms, which the changes would have entailed.

With regard to the alternative suggestions made by RBS, Internet banking cannot be used to pay money into or draw money out of a bank and therefore does not provide a service equal to that available at the branch. In the Court’s view, the bank’s suggestion that Mr Allen could be driven to branches with suitable facilities undermined his independence and the provision of banking services in the street ignored his entitlement to privacy. Not only was the treatment he had received discriminatory, but it had also caused him considerable embarrassment.

Judge Dowse awarded Mr Allen £6,500 – the highest ever compensation award in a case of this kind. Furthermore, he ordered an injunction to force RBS to install a platform lift at the premises by September 2009.

RBS intends to appeal against the decision. A spokesman for the bank said, “The Bank is committed to meeting the requirements of its disabled customers and its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It believes it has taken every possible step to meet Mr Allen’s concerns over access to his branch, in full compliance with its legal obligations. Pending the outcome of any appeal, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”