Do practices, criteria, or provisions applied not of A’s own initiative but by statutory mandate have relevance to the Equality Act?

Question

The equality act in various contexts including those concerning indirect discrimination and the duty to make reasonable adjustments, refers to “practices, criteria or provisions” that may be applied by a person A to whom the act applies.

For example, e-commerce site Amazon may offer a 30 day return policy, while a gym may offer a 14 day cooling off period for new contracts.

The former is Amazon’s own policy while the latter is simply an implementation of tyre statutory requirement. Are both equally subject to the duty to make reasonable adjustments like extending the deadlines if complying with the deadlines is too difficult for someone as a result of their disability?

But certain practices, criteria & provisions are creatures of statutes like consumer rights legislation, and required to be applied to all consumers by all businesses, and not applied proactively/volitionally by the business’s own initiative.

Are such PCPs likewise subject to the duty to reasonably adjust them?

—— Further commentary elaboration:

The question is whether they are bound by law to apply the EqA to the Regs. Ie to further reasonably adjust a regulation-prescribed criteria or timeframe for one with a disability who as a result thereof finds it difficult to manage and keep track of deadlines etc. –

Put another way:

1. Suppose Alice purchased something from a company A to whom statutory consumer rights regulations apply, thereby requiring A to allow Alice to return her purchased goods for a refund within 14 days.
2. Suppose Alice has a disability which causes her difficulty in complying with that deadline even though she has decided to return the items.
3. She requests an extension of the deadline as a reasonable adjustment to the practice of allowing returns to consumers within 14 days because this (either the length or the rigidity of the deadline) adversely affects Alice due to her disability.
4. However, the practice of allowing returns within 14 days isn’t devised by the company itself but rather is prescribed and mandated by the law, which the company is indeed implementing to the letter (without generally going beyond it at all; ie, they adopt the law as their policy verbatim).
5. Is such a practice (one prescribed by legal requirements) also subject to the duty to be further reasonably adjusted, or is simple literal compliance enough without any adjustment to accommodate disabled people disproportionately adversely impacted by it?

Answer 1

The question is whether they are bound by law to apply the EqA to the Regs.

In my view, a business is not in a position to "apply" the requirements of the Equality Act to regulations that also happen to impose requirements on the business. Regulations are statutory instruments created by the executive and not within the purview of an ordinary business to alter.

However, when a business adopts practice, criteria, or provision that follows the minimum requirements of a regulation, all the requirements of the Equality Act that apply to practices, criteria, or provisions apply. See the reference to "practice, criterion, or provision" throughout the Equality Act.

If the regulation allows for upward deviation of the business's practice, criterion, or provision, then it may be within the business's capacity to make accommodations.

If the regulation does not allow for upward deviation, then there is no reasonable accomodation available to the business on this dimension.