Home – New Forums Starting your journey retirement business TAKE 2 Reply To: retirement business TAKE 2

  • Total posts: 85

James that’s all well and good and to that I only have one question.

Who am I discriminating against?

Access to the business is available (concrete slab on ground with wheelchair access), disabled parking (as earlier stated per the BCA) is provided, I certainly have no objections to assistance animals and finally I am the first one to assist anyone needing help if necessary and will go to extremes, especially for people with a disability.

But nothing in the DDA says I have to provide the service of toilet facilities for the public or customers in this business. The ‘GUIDELINE ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PREMISES STANDARDS’ mirrors the BCA in it’s performance standards,

“FP2.1 Performance Requirement
This clause provides the general Performance Requirements in relation to
sanitary facilities provided in a building.
It states that suitable sanitary facilities must be provided in convenient locations and that the provision of sanitary facilities should take account of the function or use of a building, the number and gender of occupants and the needs of occupants including people with disability.”

Nothing in law says I have to employ anyone. In fact it will only be my wife and myself for the foreseeable future and if that changes then and only then will other measures be considered. To apply preemptive conditions to an unknown variable is unreasonable.

As to your statement “So basically, for many elements you can’t seek approval without the relevant accreditation” the BCA recommends 4 optional assessment methods with only 1 being “expert Judgement”(and we all know what an exspurt is).

Does it take an expert to read and understand ‘plain English’, I could refer you to a Professor Emeritus who would question that.

As you probably be aware most of the legal profession rely on ‘unqualified’ subordinates to do the ground work and make recommendations e.g. Erin Brokovich.

I totally disagree with the assertion that we MUST pay for something that is already provided free, usually promoted by those that have an interest.

I think, as with any legislation, it first has to be established if the law in question actually applies to the situation.

I feel that in this case it does not apply and therefore how can it be required to comply.

Oh wow, what a rant.

I hope I haven’t upset or insulted anyone.