Obstacle course in the store
As the buyer stated in the complaint, she was met at “Lytagra” by massive rotating entrance gates through which she could not pass. So the woman had to push through the checkout area to get into the sales floor. “There were quite a few people standing here, some with large bulky goods, everyone had to step back, which made me feel very uncomfortable,” she said.
Read more Klaipėda Concert Hall urgently needs serious repairs – the foundations are already shaky
The woman also encountered obstacles once inside the sales area. According to her, it was impossible to enter some departments with a stroller due to narrow gaps, and some products were placed too high. Because of this, the customer could not purchase everything she wanted. The woman added that she also did not find a call button for a consultant.
When the service contacted the company “Panevėžio Lytagra,” it emphasized that the store building, reconstructed in 2006, meets all accessibility requirements set out in the construction technical regulations of that time. According to the company’s representatives, all their products are accessible to persons with mobility impairments.
Recommended to improve accessibility
However, according to Equal Opportunities Controller Birutė Sabatauskaitė, during the investigation, sufficient data was collected showing that the complainant could not use the store’s services on an equal basis with others. In turn, the company, according to the controller, did not prove that the sales area is fully accessible and that conditions are adapted.
Read more Woman bought a pool online, but was left out in the cold
“Accessibility is assessed not only according to the technical building solutions but also according to whether a person with a disability can truly independently, safely, and with dignity enter the premises, be there and move around, as well as use the services provided there. In this case, this right was violated,” said B. Sabatauskaitė.
UAB “Panevėžio Lytagra” was found to have violated the Equal Opportunities Act, and the company was given a warning.
The service recommended that the company assess the store’s accessibility with the help of experts and eliminate deficiencies, for example, by installing an entrance without rotating gates or ensuring another equivalent and independent access to the sales area. It was also recommended to provide clear information in a well-visible place on how to call for assistance, and to train consultants on how to properly serve people with disabilities.
Read more Who will decide whether green arrows at traffic lights will be restored?
