THE Royal Bank of Scotland's name is mud following David Allen's landmark legal victory over a lack of disabled access at its Church Street head office in Sheffield.
The 17-year-old schoolboy, who uses a wheelchair, took on the multi-billion pound financial behemoth which used every tactic in the book to try to brush his claim aside – and failed spectacularly.
The Star reported this week how the bank breached
the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) by failing to install wheelchair access after David first raised the issue more than two years ago.
Sheffield County Court ordered RBS to install a lift by September – the first time a court has ever granted an injunction requiring building work under the DDA – and pay him £6,500 in compensation.
Action Desk has followed David's fight from the start.
When David complained initially he saw there were signs in the bank and on its website which claimed the premises were accessible to wheelchairs. But the judge found this was wrong.
David was told he could use the staff entrance, but it too was inaccessible, and a claim he could use his cards at NatWest was also wrong.
The bank offered David £250, then £1,000, and then £1,500 to drop the case. On the day it went to court last year he was offered £5,000 to go away, provided he signed a confidentiality clause. But the family refused, his father Paul dubbed the move "a cynical attempt to buy us off".
David launched his claim through the small claims track at Sheffield County Court, but RBS successfully applied to move it to the 'multi-track' system which, if he lost, would have left him liable for legal costs of up to £50,000.
Unwilling to risk losing their home in Bents Green, Sheffield, the family thought they were beaten – until a white knight arrived at the eleventh hour.
In an rare move, the Government-funded Equality and Human Rights Commission announced it would underwrite costs because he had such a strong case.
RBS is liable for both sides' legal fees and the £6,500 compensation – a total of about £50,000.
But an RBS spokeswoman said they strongly disagreed with the court's judgement and they would appeal.
Got a view? Add your comment below.READ MOREMore Action DeskMain news indexYour lettersFeaturesSouth Yorkshire's environmental newsKids ZoneMore business newsMore Rotherham newsMore Doncaster newsMore Barnsley newsLatest sport.