Who owns Access to Work equipment?

Hi Megan

Contact your line manager and let them know there is an issue outstanding. AtW willl have provided you with an assessment of your needs complete with recommended equipment to be sourced. Part of the assessment will also detail exactly what your employer can claim back. An example would be an assessment that details the correct type/make of chair, headset and ergonomic one-handed keyboard. In this case you may find the cost of the headset and keyboard may be recoverable from AtW but not the chair, even though the chair would cost the thick end of £600 as it is seen as a reasonable purchase for the employer to make. The cost of the headset and keyboard could be recovered (to the maximum allowance they specify) as they are seen to be purchases out of the ordinary.

Give your line manager a gentle reminder. It could be that your issue has simply fallen off their radar. If you work for a very large company then I would be surprised if they didn't have safety represenatives you could approach for assistance if your issue is not addressed.

Employer at my work place is responsible for a chair that they were suppose to have purchased for me but have not done so. Very large employer but no duty of care towards their employee escpecially disabled one.

Megan

Hi Will, It is the employee who is the customer in AtoW's eyes - they are making the claim for an adaptation based on their own needs.

@ Kevin

Also "the customer" can be seen as ambiguous; surely the employer and the employee can be both to AtW?

This Government report has only just come out on the recomendations laid out in the 'Sayce' review into disability work programs. It recomends some changes to Access to Work, if you look at this link - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2011/specialist-disability-emp-prog.shtml - on p14 (of the pdf version) the Government themselves don't seem completely clear what the situation is, with all their legal advice.
Quote -
"We will also clarify the ownership of equipment made available through Access to Work, aiming to move to a position where ownership rests clearly with the customer wherever possible. We will need to look carefully at the situation where an employer has contributed to the cost."

'aiming to move' and 'wherever possible' don't give the impression that it is legally cut and dried!

what is it that confuses the ownership issue?

Usually who paid for it ? In the case of PPE title remains with the employer although, this maybe changing where employees who take out DSE insurance maybe purchasing their own PPE / Aids to access work opperational equipment !

is this thread still open?

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Just wanted to congratulate Alan on the Quality, Clarity and above all the Calmness (is that a word?) of his posts.

All done with out the use of CAPS....

Bravo sir

Query has arisen here too - Access to Work advises us they purchase equipmnt for the person to enable them to access the workplace - so they expect the item to move with the person to avoid essential re-purchase when they change jobs.
But that is only advice when they fund the item; we too are a Gov Dept.
Of course, since everyone's disability is different a lot of such equipment would be wasted if anyone other than the person it was purchased for used it - even if some of it might be used by others.
Our Department has said it will consider each item/person separately, costs, type and age (of equipment) and disability. They are considering either making a beneficient gift of it (tax to be paid ?) or possibly charge a nominal sum depending on any asset value.
With many staff leaving under redundancy over the next year, it will be an important equal opportunity support for the chances of redundant disabled people getting a new job, if they don't need to ask a new employer to fund their reasonable adjustment equipment immediately. (Of course redundancy is different to a straight forward job change).

any equipment funded by or advised by access to work remains the property of the person it was assessed for...the provision is to enable a person to gain/stay in employment...
I have come accross many situations where the employer has kept equipment (espescially seating) and given it someone else and later found it to be wholly unsuitable...then there is a battle with the new 'occupant'...
Moreover, when an employee has left, transferred, been promoted and subsequently re-submitted a claim to A2W, they will have been refused and the equipment has ALREADY been issued
Irene is correct, phone the head honcho in glasgow and their policy is soon made clear!

I received equipment which I need for my new employment, so will be asking for it.
My former employer failed to agree to obtain occupational spectacles with predictable results. Thanks for the advice

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

AtoW carried out a workplace assessment for a member of my staff. They recommended the purchase of a particular chair and a computer keyboard and mouse. As we are a government department and the cost was under £1000 we bore the total cost of the equipment. The employee has indicated she will be leaving the public sector to seek employment in the private sector. If she leaves is she entitled to retain the equipment or does the employer retain it as we wholly fuded its purchase? Alan's advice seems to relate to joint purchase between the employer and At0W, I may have picked it up wrong.

Thanks for your response, Alan. I do have a broad understanding of title so your position on this discussion is a bit clearer for me now.

I would simply take the equipment home. It is yours in law and if you no longer need it you can do with it as you please. In the case of software it is their peril let them deal with the consequences.

Alan, Thank you for your advice, it sounds clear and unambiguous. Interesting that my employer (in this case Manager) is insisting on its return, so that he can give it to someone else to use for their training. The main problem here though is the user licence is for one person (me at time of issue/purchase).

Do I advise him of the legal implications or allow him to proceed in error?

I think that is very sound advice Irene, and of course the set off against tax is perfectly acceptable.

We have been advised by A2W that any equipment is the employee's and if they move jobs or leave work, then they can request the equipment goes with them. However, if you have paid 50% can you not write it off with depreciation?

We have ongoing 'discussions' with A2W over support workers. They change their minds daily, sometimes hourly, as to what their current criteria is.
The latest request from them is they want addresses of possible outreach sites where the Supported person will be working in the next year. We rely on funding for all our delivery of services and don't know from month to month where we may be. They won't agree to support unless we give them full details of sites. This is a new directive as they didn't want this information last year, could this have anything to sdo with government cuts?? Runs contrary to Government objectives regarding getting people back to work however!
If you can't get a firm directive locally, I suggest phoning DWP Glasgow and asking for the chief honcho's email address and phone no. This usually brings results. Don't forget to get EVERYTHING in writing!

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

Enough said on this I think.

Martin, no. The software belongs to the employee. I doesn't matter who pays or contributes. Title vests in the end user. There is no copyright infringement by the employer as they act as agent for the employee. I hope this helps. If I buy you software I am your agent. Is that ok? Now training is a licensed exchange of IP so the property vests with the trainee. I hope this helps.

As a side issue, it is useful to note that ATW can grant aid the building improvements an employee needs, but that as Alan points out, then remain the property of the employer.

Peter Monk

Alan, This concept of 'Title' is an interesting issue.

If an employer covers the cost for training materials (which may only be licensed to the user, as with software), does this mean that they may possess it and aks for it to be returned to them, but they may not re-use as it may infringing software licensing?

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.