Accessibility is rarely controversial – until someone decides it might be being “abused.”
Recent changes to disability access schemes at some of the UK’s major theme parks have sparked a debate that goes far beyond rollercoasters and queue times.
At its heart is a familiar legal question: How do organisations prevent misuse of accessibility systems without creating barriers for the very people those systems are designed to support?
When Ride Access Pass schemes are tightened – particularly in ways that affect neurodivergent guests – the conversation quickly moves from operational logistics to something much bigger: fairness, dignity, and legal duty.
So what does the law actually require – and where does legal risk arise?
The legal duty isn’t optional and it can’t wait
Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers have a proactive duty to make reasonable adjustments where a disabled person would otherwise be placed at a substantial disadvantage.
That word “proactive” matters. Organisations must think about barriers before disabled people encounter them.
In practice, reasonable adjustments might include:
- Adapting policies or processes (like queuing systems)
- Modifying environments
- Providing support or alternative access routes
Crucially, disabled people should not be charged for the removal of barriers created by the system itself.
The legal question isn’t whether queues are inconvenient – the question is whether they create a substantial disadvantage for disabled people, particularly those with hidden disabilities.
If they do, the legal duty is triggered.
That duty requires adjustments that genuinely alleviate the disadvantage. Large organisations – particularly those operating high-volume public attractions – are expected to demonstrate proportionate planning. Courts and tribunals consistently recognise that bigger organisations carry a greater capacity to adjust.
Why queues are not “just an inconvenience”
A comment we’re hearing a lot is: “Nobody likes queuing.” This is true. But legally irrelevant.
We are not talking about what likes and dislikes here. For many neurodivergent individuals, queues aren’t a mild frustration. They can involve a combination of unpredictability, sensory overload, and social pressure that creates genuine and long lasting distress.
This isn’t about preference. It’s about impact.
When a queue causes anxiety escalation, shutdown, or the inability to participate at all, it crosses into substantial disadvantage territory. That is precisely what the Equality Act is designed to address. And this is where organisations sometimes misunderstand the law: reasonable adjustments are not about comfort – they are about removing barriers to participation.
A practical case study: What queuing can really mean for an autistic guest
To understand why queue adjustments matter, we need to move beyond just policy discussions and look at the reality of what happens to some autistic people in environments that are unpredictable, crowded, and sensory-heavy.
The following example is fictional but drawn from common lived experiences shared by autistic adults and families.
Case Study: Sam’s Visit to a Theme Park
Sam is a 28-year-old autistic adult. He loves theme parks – the engineering of rides, the predictability of safety systems, and the sense of achievement all appeal to him. Visiting the park is something he has looked forward to for weeks.
Before the queue: Anticipatory stress
In the days leading up to the visit, Sam carefully plans the day. He researches ride wait times, maps routes, and mentally rehearses interactions. This preparation isn’t casual – it’s a coping strategy.
On arrival, he discovers that wait times are longer than expected and the disability access system he assumed would help is unavailable.
Immediately, uncertainty creeps in:
- How long will the queue really take?
- Will the environment be too loud?
- What if people stand too close?
For Sam, unpredictability isn’t a mild inconvenience – it triggers rising anxiety and a sense of losing control. His nervous system is already working harder than those around him just to stay regulated.
This anticipatory stress alone can be exhausting. By the time Sam joins the queue, he is already using significant cognitive and emotional energy simply to cope.
During the queue: Sensory and cognitive overload
The queue environment is crowded, noisy, and chaotic. Music plays loudly. Children shout. There is laughter, screaming and crying all at once. The line stops and starts unpredictably.
Sam must constantly:
- Monitor personal space
- Track movement
- Interpret social cues
- Manage sensory input
Each of these demands draws on executive functioning – an area many autistic people experience differently.
As the queue continues, Sam’s nervous system shifts into overload:
- Sounds become physically uncomfortable
- His thinking narrows
- Emotional regulation becomes harder
He begins to feel trapped. Leaving the queue would mean “failing” the plan he worked so hard to build. Staying feels physically and emotionally unbearable.
Eventually, Sam reaches a shutdown state. He becomes quiet, withdrawn, and unable to communicate clearly. From the outside, he may simply appear tired or irritable – but internally, he is overwhelmed and exhausted and experiences a meltdown.
After the queue: The hidden impact
Sam leaves the ride shaken, emoitonal and depleted. The rest of the day is affected – he avoids further queues and struggles to re-engage.
When he returns home, he experiences:
- Fatigue
- Heightened anxiety
- Reduced tolerance for everyday demands
- Emotional shutdown
What was meant to be a leisure experience now requires hours – sometimes days – of recovery.
The disadvantage therefore doesn’t end when the queue ends.
The ripple effects impact wellbeing, relationships, and daily functioning long after the environment is left behind.
When Accessibility Systems Tighten: Where Legal Risk Appears
Recent controversy around access pass restrictions illustrates a common pitfall the approach has been designed primarily around fraud prevention rather than barrier removal.
If the core barrier remains, the the adjustment risks being legally inadequate.
A blanket exclusion of people whose primary barrier relates to crowd tolerance may unintentionally amount to indirect discrimination if it disproportionately affects disabled groups without sufficient justification.
Abuse happens – but suspicion cannot drive design
Let’s address the uncomfortable truth: accessibility systems can be misused.
Organisations are entitled to protect their systems. However, the law does not permit accessibility to be restricted purely because it’s possible to be misused.
Systems built on distrust often create disproportionate burdens on legitimate users, including invasive proof requirements or humiliating verification processes.
No accessibility system will ever be abuse-proof. But that potential for abuse is not a reason to remove the legal entitlements of disabled individuals.
What good practice actually looks like
When organisations approach accessibility through both a legal and human lens, several principles emerge:
- Focus on functional barriers
Ask: What stops this person accessing the service — and what adjustment removes that barrier?
Diagnosis matters less than lived impact.
- Offer a menu, not a single solution
Disability is not one-size-fits-all. Flexibility is part of compliance.
- Design systems that remove or minimise disadvantage, not access
Virtual queues allow equal wait times without sensory harm – a legally strong and operationally fair solution.
- Communicate clearly and empathetically
Accessibility policies should feel supportive, not adversarial. Staff training is essential – frontline teams should understand both the legal duty and the human experience behind it.
- Plan ahead
Accessibility cannot be reactive. Anticipatory design reduces risk and improves customer trust. Consider how you can involve disabled peoples voices in the planning.
The Bigger Picture
The Equality Act does not demand perfection. It demands fairness and proportionality.
For many neurodivergent guests, traditional queuing systems create genuine barriers. Removing those barriers isn’t preferential treatment – it is a legal requirement.
And when accessibility systems are designed thoughtfully, they benefit everyone: reducing conflict, increasing participation, and reinforcing public trust.
Accessibility is not about giving advantage.
It is about removing disadvantage.
That distinction is where good law and good practice meet.
Practical Takeaways for Service Providers
If you operate public-facing services, ask yourself:
✔ Does our policy genuinely remove or minimize barriers – or just manage complaints?
✔ Are we focusing on functional impact rather than labels?
✔ Have we balanced abuse prevention with dignity?
✔ Is our system anticipatory, not reactive?
✔ Do frontline teams understand the legal duty?
If the answer to any of these is uncertain, it’s time to review.
Need Expert Advice?
At Thrive Law, we support organisations to design accessibility systems that are legally robust, human-centred, and operationally workable. For more information visit our neurodiversity page.
If you want guidance on reasonable adjustments, neurodiversity inclusion, or Equality Act compliance, we’re here to help.
