Conciliation Register

The complainant’s son has fragile X syndrome and an intellectual disability and needs assistance when handling money, paying bills and accessing his bank account. The complainant had been assisting her son with his banking at the respondent bank and claimed the bank told her that third-party authorisation would continue after he turned 18. She alleged that when her son turned 18, the bank would no longer permit her to access his account or banking details.

The bank said it allowed access to the account of a customer (whether child or adult) with disability to a relevant authorised person. When a person with disability turned 18, the authorisation was removed for their parent/guardian. If reinstating the authorisation was necessary (for example, if the customer with disability cannot manage their own finances) this could be done with the appropriate legal authority (for example, a financial management order). The bank denied discriminating against the complainant or her son, but said it was sorry that their banking experience did not meet their expectations.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant’s son $3,500 in compensation for his poor customer experience.

 

The complainant has a psychosocial disability and applied for a role in a remote location with the respondent mining company. She said she began an onboarding process but was then told her application was unsuccessful after she made the company aware of her mental health history. She claimed she was not given feedback on her application.

On being advised of the complaint, the mining company indicated a willingness to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the mining company pay the complainant $6,000 and write to her expressing regret for the events giving rise to the complaint. The company also agreed to delete any health and medical information it held about the complainant.

The complainant has anxiety, depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and has two assistance animals. He alleged the respondent government agency told him he could not bring his dogs to appointments and that the police may be called if he tried to do so.

The government agency claimed that, at the time of the appointment, the complainant was unable to provide any information to demonstrate that the dogs were assistance animals. The agency said the complainant was not denied a service, only asked to leave his dogs outside.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant provided additional information to demonstrate that his dogs are assistance animals and the government agency undertook that he could bring his assistance animals to future appointments.

The complainant’s daughter has chromosomal duplication (which affects her ability to handwrite), dyspraxia, inattentive attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, poor auditory memory and week short term memory. The complainant said her daughter’s school applied to the respondent education standards authority for adjustments to accommodate her disability during end of year 12 exams. The complainant claimed her daughter was granted small group supervision and rest breaks, but not use of a computer. She alleged this refusal was discriminatory because it would prevent her daughter from performing at her best.

The authority denied discriminating against the complainant’s daughter but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. On being provided with additional information about the complainant’s daughter’s disability and need for adjustment, the authority approved the use of a computer for the exams.

The complainant has psychosocial disability, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and panic attacks. He has two assistance dogs that assist him to stay calm and manage the effects of his disability. He alleged he was not permitted to enter his local library with his assistance dogs, despite providing evidence that they are assistance animals.

The respondent council said it had reservations about whether the dogs were trained to meet standards of behaviour acceptable for public areas.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant was permitted to enter his local library with his dogs after the council commissioned an assessment of their behaviour, at no cost to the complainant.

The complainant is 16 years of age and has dyslexia, and has difficulty with working memory, auditory processing, reading, and spelling. She alleged the respondent education standards authority declined her requests for adjustments to accommodate her disability during year 12 exams.

The authority advised that the decision to decline the complainant’s original application for adjustments was overturned on appeal. The authority advised there was miscommunication about the appeal between the authority and the complainant’s school.

The complaint was resolved. The complainant was granted the use of a computer with voice-to-text software and with timed breaks during exams.

 

The complainant is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair. He alleged that the respondent council built a bridge that is not compliant with the relevant disability standard. He claimed pedestrians using wheelchairs were required to cross to roads, whereas pedestrians not using mobility aids were not required to do so.

The council claimed the disability standard did not apply to the bridge, but that the bridge would have been compliant. The council claimed the bridge was accessible and safe for pedestrians using wheelchairs. 

The complaint was resolved. The council agreed to meet with the complainant at the bridge to explore potential remedial work to improve safety for all pedestrians at the road crossings. The council also made changes to its accessibility planning mechanisms for future construction/capital works. The complainant agreed to make himself available to offer his accessibility expertise to council free of charge if required. 

The complainant is Deaf. She enrolled in a face-to-face class which was later delivered virtually due to Covid-19. She alleged the teacher declined her request to explain and then demonstrate artistic practices, saying this would take too long. She also said the teacher suggested she wait until face-to-face classes became available once more. The complainant said she was unable to enrol in the class because it would not be accessible to her.

On being advised of the complaint, the respondent indicated a desire to try to resolve the complaint by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent offer the complainant three one-hour private virtual art classes with an Auslan interpreter, valued at $450.

 

The complainant has Autism Spectrum Disorder, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, and depression. She resided in a caravan park and sought permission to have an assistance dog reside with her. The caravan park declined the request, citing its ‘no pets’ policy for guests and residents. 

On being advised of the complaint the business indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the complainant be permitted to have an assistance animal, provide relevant supporting documentation to the business, ensure the assistance animal was properly trained by an accredited organisation and ensure her dog practised appropriate toileting within the caravan park. 

The complainant is blind and requires sighted assistance to fill out and sign print application forms. He said that he requested assistance from the respondent bank to fill out an investment growth bond application form and was told he would be charged a fee of $2,600. 

The bank said there had been miscommunication on the issue and explained the fee quoted to the complainant was a fee for financial advice and not for assistance to fill out an investment growth application form.  

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the bank pay the complainant $6,000 as general damages.  

The complainant’s son has Autism Spectrum Disorder and has an assistance dog to help him manage the effects of his disability. She alleged the respondent motel refused a booking for the family if her son was accompanied by his assistance dog. 

On being notified of the complaint, the motel agreed to participate in a conciliation process. 

The complaint was resolved after the motel acknowledged its obligations with respect to guests with assistance animals under anti-discrimination laws and updated its website to say that guests with assistance animals are welcome.

The complainant experiences chronic lower-back joint pain, depression, and anxiety and at times uses a walking stick. She worked as a driver for the respondent government department and claimed that the department did not provide her with an accessible parking space, asked her not to use her walking stick and did not otherwise accommodate her disability. She also alleged colleagues bullied her because of her disability.

The department denied the allegations but indicated a willingness to participate in conciliation. 

The complaint was resolved. The parties agreed to end the employment relationship. The department agreed to pay the complainant $18,000. The department also agreed to introduce a number of training and policy initiatives including the introduction of disability confidence training for management, a revision of existing training to include disability and discrimination training for all staff and measures to ensure better dissemination of complaints handling information internally, greater accessibility to policies for all staff and better visibility of contact information for the internal diversity officer. 

The complainant uses a walking frame to aid mobility. She advised the respondent sporting team moved to a new venue and patrons were required to use stairs to access front row seating. She claimed she had previously been allowed to pass through a restricted secure area to access seating, but this arrangement was no longer available.

On being advised of the complaint, the respondent indicated a willingness to try and resolve the matter by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved with an agreement that the respondent allow the complainant alternative access to the front row, accessible seating.

 

The complainant has anxiety and depression. She is enrolled in a bachelor’s degree with the respondent university and resides in student accommodation. The complainant said that the university had previously accommodated her need to take time off her studies to manage her disability. However, she claimed the university had recently started a ‘show cause’ process due to an unsuccessful year of study which could result in her being excluded from the university for five years. She claimed the university did not give due consideration to medical evidence about the impact of her disability on her studies and resulting need for reasonable adjustment.

On being notified of the complaint, the university indicated a willingness to try to resolve the matter by conciliation.

The complaint was resolved. The university agreed to apply the complainant’s late withdrawals retrospectively, so she did not fail subjects. The university agreed to allow the complainant to defer her studies, beyond the standard referral period if required. The university also undertook to prioritise the complainant’s application for accommodation on campus.

The complainant is blind and unable to read information on signs and notification screens. He alleged he was refused sighted-guide assistance at a station to enable him to find and make his way to a platform.

The respondent public transport provider considered that its station staff and conductors offer passengers with disability sufficient assistance to access station facilities, including locating train platforms.

The complaint was resolved with an undertaking by the transport provider to update its website to include information about direct assistance, incorporating feedback from the complainant. The transport provider also undertook to update its app to state that information is subject to change and passengers should approach station staff for the most up-to-date information and for any requests for assistance. Finally, the transport provider agreed to deliver training on direct assistance and disability awareness to frontline staff at the station.