Great Western Coffee Shop

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-24214346#story_continues_1

I have always believed the wheelchair takes priority and anyone bringing a pushchair on the bus is warned that they may be asked to fold it if someone in a wheelchair gets on (If I am at the wheel)

What if there is no space to store the pushchair?
Will you hold the baby whilst parent folds pushchair and puts it into the storage place?
What If the parent has one of these massive pushchairs that when folded take more space than when in upright position?
Doesn't sound as simple as you make out it to be.

When I was a kid my parents didn't have a car. My mum managed to somehow do her shopping whilst escorting me and my pushchair on the bus. She folded it up. Even modern buses have luggage pens - back in the 80s that was a feature missing from Transit (and other small) buses!

It's like when I've had large luggage to take with me. I just put it on my lap if it won't fit in the luggage rack. Better than taking up a seat. The problem is that people are either too stupid or selfish to think of the impact of their actions on others.

It's absolutely right that wheelchair users have priority over pushchairs and luggage.

I can't quite understand why First Group were 'disappointed'.

Wheelchair users, quite rightly, have legislation on their side. Pushchair users don't. Not even those whose pushchair has a sleeping occupant.

The individual circumstances may be difficult, but that doesn't mean that company/local policy ("first come first served") can ignore the law. That law being the Equality Act 2010.

Had it been another wheelchair occupying the space then yes, Mr Paulley would have had to wait for the next service.

That said, you have to feel for the driver in these circumstances. If the only guidance they are given is to rely on the goodwill of passengers already occupying the wheelchair space then that puts those drivers in a difficult position when a passenger refuses to move. Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to either fold up the pushchair or disembark to make room.

The problem these days is that many mothers have these very large buggies which are a nightmare on buses especially if you have more than 1 onboard.

I have witnessed some mothers start having a argument when they tried to get their buggies on along with their shopping.

A I stated before I always ask anyone who brought a buggie down if they can fold them down as the space if for wheelchairs not buggies.

The problem is that there are a few mothers who then complain they are being discriminated against and have even had an argument with the person in a wheelchair who was trying to board the bus. If you throw them off the bus they are running to the press to complain putting on the waterworks.

First Cymru were pretty good giving us drivers training on dealing with wheelchairs and storing  them on the bus. The company even stated that we can tell passengers to fold buggies if it is a safety hazard especially if we have to evacuate the bus in an emergency, although I still see some buses with wheelchairs blocking the isles.

Here's an interesting situation I experienced on a London bus a few months ago.  Bus is completely rammed full, no more room for any more passengers (able bodied or otherwise).  A wheelchair user wants to get on the bus at the next stop, so the driver asks some standing passengers to get off the bus and wait for the next one.  They obviously weren't very happy, especially those who were using Oyster PAYG and would have to pay again (they were not offered transfer tickets).  Was the driver right in doing this?

My personal view is that the driver was wrong, because there was no room for anyone on the bus.  Clearly there would have been no discrimination had the wheelchair been refused as non-wheelchair users were also being denied boarding.  The law doesn't give disabled people priority, just entitlement to equal (or better) treatment.

(Apologies for opening a can of worms here)

I think you're right. It'd be the same on trains....

The 'Big Red Book' which is the guidance manual for TfL bus drivers says this:
Nothing about getting people to get off, but the bit I have put in bold could be interpreted as such I suppose on a packed bus.

This thread is indeed likely to be a whole can of worms - but we've talked through cans of worms before.

Does the Equalities Act 2010 overule the The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) (Amendment) Regulations 2002?


Obviously it now does as the judge has ruled so.

In addition I have looked at the Equalities Act 2010 and the access to public transport only pertains to the right to be able to board and travel on public transport safely, not to have priority.

I feel the judge has misinterpreted the act, the wheelchair user is entitled to equal treatment - throwing someone on board off is not getting equal treatment but preferential treatment; is the child in the pushchair not being discriminated against because it could not board if the wheelchair user was on first?

In order to understand the background of a story better, I find it helps to learn a little about what the people in the story say and do in the public domain.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/doug_paulley

http://www.kingqueen.org.uk/

https://twitter.com/kingqueen3065

Obviously it now does as the judge has ruled so.
 [/quote]

My limited understand is the later act overules the earlier act, so in this case the 2010 act overides the 2002 act.

My concern with the equality act is disabled people getting preferential treatment, surely that isn't equality?

My understanding of the act is that it requires where it's practical for disabled people to get an equivalent or better service.  Although it may be known as the "equality act", exact equality would be hard to define - how on earth do you compare two services which are different because of the very nature of the people you are serving and define them as being equal?  So the law writers took the boundary line called "equal service" and said that everything was required to fall on one side and not the other, and that's much easier to evaluate ... if you can't evaluate it in a particular situation, then you can simply provide an even better service for the disabled person / persons and you'll eventually get to the point where there's no dispute and you have complied.

I have a handful of friends and good contacts, personal and business, who are unfortunate enough to have to use a wheelchair or crutches or are disabled in a legal sense in some other way.  And I'm happy - more than happy - to go that extra mile, or even that extra marathon, to ensure that they are excellently provided for;  that's not really because the law tells me I must (in fact I resent being dictated to by the law) but rather out of common politeness and being a social and sociable animal.  And that's just as I would go those extra steps for those who are less able, but haven't crossed the magic threshold of being classified "disabled".  A babe in a pushchair is no more capable of walking than a middle aged person in a pushchair, and there are so many people who are limited because of medical conditions and treatments.

Without exception, the friends and good contacts I mention are lovely people, as are my friends and good contacts in real life.  Alas, there's always a small minority of people that you or I would find difficult to get on with, would consider to be unfair / manipulative / taking advantage / biased, and that's irrespective of any (dis)ability or other personal situation that could be regarded as potentially discriminatable - there are lots of other "equality" laws too.  And where such a person takes a service provider to task, that service provider is put in a hugely difficult situation, as it's so easy for the person from the minority I have labelled 'nasty' to cry 'fowl' and - often with a great deal of time and resource on his / her hands - he / she can waste a lot of service provider resource, especially if the case is taken up by an organisation that's looking to help define the law for the maximum benefit of the disabled.  Regrettably to the extent that there develops an atmosphere of fear in service providers when called to look after someone who's potentially in an "equality"protected minority.

I have been careful not to refer to any specific public cases here - I have no personal knowledge beyond what's reported and what I have read online of any of the situations reported on the forum, and I'm in no position to express an individual view.   But I can tell you that I'm thinking of three specific sets of situations I have found myself in or close to in the past which make this post rather more than pure theory.  One was actually "disabled on disabled", one was a test made to see just how far [we] could be pushed into making special arrangements by someone who, it turned out, had no intention what so ever of using the services where I was working, and the third alleged discrimination due to having to do a different job to colleagues, when everyone had different job descriptions and had applied for and taken on various roles so that we had everything covered in the first place.  I have probably said too much ...

An update on the case, from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30010126):

Having read back through the thread, listened to the news and reminded myself where I have heard of Doug Palley before, I await the outcome with interest and will probably comment, with great care, in the fullness of time.

On my bus ride this morning, I was joined by two wheelchair users and a pushchair :o. The pushchair boarded first, and was parked in the wheelchair space. When the first wheelchair user boarded, the owner of the pushchair moved it into the cycle/pushchair space (not officially titled such, but I have seen it used for both purposes). When the second wheelchair user wanted to board, the driver had a word, mentioning how long it would be to the next bus etc. It appeared the second wheelchair user then agreed to use the pushchair/cycle space, so the pushchair owner had to come forward again to fold the pushchair and put it in the luggage rack. So the bus continued on its way with a wheelchair in both the wheelchair and cycle/pushchair spaces.

Although the case is wheelchair and pushchair battling for 1 space
What happens if more wheelchair users want a service than the bus allows on a route that has perhaps a 2 hourly service for example?
Is their protocol in place so wheelchair doesn't have to wait 2 hours?

I await with interest the outcome of the court case.   Has other news pushed this out of the papers, or is the case taking longer than expected?


Equality question - is there a protocol in place so that others don't have to wait 2 hours?  ;D ;D

I'm sure Doug Paulley would have posted the result on his website or twitter account had it been published. Whilst I have a degree of sympathy with his case, from information freely in the public domain the volume of freedom of information requests that he makes (around 3 or 4 a month) tends to lessen my enthusiasm for his cause.

Spot on - it is a question of pure equality. If the bus is full & am ambulant person has to await the next bus, then a wheelchair can be expected to do the same. Pushchairs however, even though a number of users think they do, do NOT give the owner any priority. Most if not all are somewhat cfollapsible, and the owner can be expected to do this without howls of protest.

I think that's a reasonable stance to take as long as the pushchair is being used solely to transport cider back from the offie.

It's a bit less reasonable if the pushchair has an infant in it. Single-handedly extracting a non-ambulent child from a pushchair, securing the child (how?) and then folding the pushchair is not a task to be taken lightly, particularly if the bus driver decides that now would be a good time to see if their bus can out-drag a Bugatti Veyron.

Agreed - but disability campaigners would soon put you right. The wheelchair user has no choice but to be using that in order to get around - the parent always has different choices

What is reasonable and what is the law aren't always the same.   Further "reasonable" differs in one person's view to another's, and "equality" is almost impossible to define when you start with inherently varied inputs.  There is a school of thought that suggests that a young person in a wheeled vehicle who is conveyed in that because (s)he cannot walk is every much as mobility disabled as a middle aged or old person in a wheeled vehicle for the same reasons.

The solution should be sense, understanding, and an ability of people to work together to sort these things out when problems arise.  And it usually is; we have a couple of friends who are wheelchair bound and almost always a word and a smile from the work wonders and people want to help.  Indeed, it probably works far better than demanding of a person in charge that (s)he clear people out of the way for you.

Both Go-Ahead (Oxford Bus) and Stagecoach, the main Oxfordshire buses, have very clear prominent notices informing pushchair owners that Wheelchair users have rights over pushchairs and pushchair users must vacate a wheelchair space if it is subsequently required for a wheelchair.
Oxford has a good proportion of wheelchair users and bus use forms a much higher proportion of transport than in many other areas. I have witnessed a wheelchair being refused entrance onto a bus because no wheel chair space was available and the bus probably also had a very high number of able-bodied standing regular travellers. The wheelchair user had to return to the shelter and await the next bus. Not so much a problem however in Oxford where bus frequency is every few minutes on the major routes into town.

The pushchair we had when the girls were younger would take up more space folded than unfolded. The surface area when folded was larger than the area taken up by it unfolded.
We never took it on a bus though

I would suppose that those already on the bus have the edge over those not yet in that favoured position, able bodied or otherwise. It is possible that someone may have got off the bus a stop early to make way for the wheelchair user, but equally possible that the strapper-hangers at the back would have been utterly unaware of the situation unfolding at the front door. As you say, less of a problem in somewhere with decent public transport than it is in Bristol.

I was looking today at a maximum capacity sign on an optare solo.
It said 24 standing or 18 standing plus 1 wheelchair.

There was 21 standing passengers on the bus, so the driver can take 3 more standing passengers but can't take a wheelchair if my understanding is correct.

If he was to come to a stop with 3 passengers able to stand and a wheelchair user, can he take the 3 standing passengers and refuse the wheelchair?

Is that equality or would he have to refuse the passengers who could have stranded to treat all equally?

Good question. Pretty sure though that the stated wheelchair capacity would have been exceeded on my trip the other day with a second wheelchair in the bike/pushchair space (though I didn't check the maximum capacity sign).

I was thinking of taking a lawn mower for service on the bus - not a sit-on model. I wondered how this might pan out...

Another wonderfully cutting observation, FT,N.   ;D

You can tell me by the way I walk...

First Bus won their appeal.....wheelchair has no right of precedence over a pushchair

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30376446


Wow.

That article has now been expanded to include...

Another update today, First Bus have won their appeal case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30376446 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30376446)

Yes, that's what I posted right above yours :-)

Oops, user error, Monday morning...!

Well - the judge said "some passengers will - albeit rarely - act selfishly and irresponsibly", so we may take it that the person with the buggy wasn't exactly being a shining example to others in her(?) actions.   And that (to me) means the whole case is something that really shouldn't have happened.

What is seems to have confirmed is that there IS equality between different groups ... (s)he who gets there first has precedence; no discrimination either way.   Wheelchair first, pram has to wait for next service. Pram first, wheelchair has to wait for next service.  Now - does that extend to cycles on units such as a 150 - cycles first, sorry - no wheelchair here.   Wheelchair first, sorry no cycles?

Out of interest how would the ticketing arrangements work for someone who volunteered to leave the bus?

If they are meant as dual-role spaces, then yes, I think you have it right - that any cycles can't be forced to move. If they are marked as purely wheelchair spaces, then it would need testing again in court, I suspect, as to whether the TOC could be forced to remove said cycles....I suspect it would go the same way, even it were marked for wheelchairs only.


Good question, and one that, in light of the decision, ought to be asked of First Bus....

I foresee the Law lords having to make a further distinction between a hand propelled wheelchair , a battery operated wheelchair and a mobility scooter.......

why? (serious Q)

So all the bus companies who changed their policy and put up signs because of the first ruling, will now have to take them all down and change policies again.  Then you'll get people 'who know their rights' because they don't know the appeal has been won and there still has been no definitive government ruling. 
This will probably ping-ping back and forth, very much like Sheffield pensioners' free train travel.

We don't have Law Lords any more. Also, like ChrisB I'm unsure what point you are making.

The case in question may go to the Supreme Court. We may see amendments to the Equality Act should that happen, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

The bike space on a 150/1 is in a separate area to the wheelchair space. On a 150/2 its the same place. I would think that a human being would get precedence over a recreational piece of machinery.

Is a train, or a car or a pushchair, a 'recreational' item? Why would a bike be any different?

Errr, don't the Law Lords now sit in the Supreme Court? Lord Justice xxx still exist....

For continuity, 10 existing Law Lords (formally: Lords of Appeal in Ordinary) remained as members of the House of Lords on transfer of their judicial role to the Supreme Court in 2009. They however lost their right to speak or vote in the House of Lords until retirement from the Supreme Court. There are 12 judges in the Supreme Court and only four, as of today, are still peers. Over time new appointees will replace all the former Law Lords. Eventually all 12 justices of the Supreme Court will have no link to parliament.

The titles 'Lord' and 'Lady' and forms of address 'My Lord' and 'My Lady' remain.

The right decision in my opinion at the appeal. Why should the bus company be liable for an inconsiderate **** misusing the wheel chair space.

The original ruling opened a massive can of worms over several other issues by all accounts.

Hmm.  An interesting judicial admonishment from the appeal court judgement:

My point also earlier, now seemingly vindicated by the Court of Appeal. By the way, I believe First were absolutely correct to appeal against the decision of the lower court. In so doing, they have robbed the unfortunate gentleman of his winnings, and his "no win no fee" lawyers of their cut (don't worry, they won't go hungry - there is insurance) but more importantly have case law that is binding on all lower courts. The judgment seemed to have hinged on:


This is wisdom at its simplest and best. I see it as admonishment of Parliament rather than of the judge in the Court of first instance. Parliament has ordained that spaces for disabled passengers (and drivers, swimmers, diners, etc) shall be provided, but not that they shall always be available. Supermarkets are required to provide 4% of their parking spaces as disabled spaces, seldom all used. But where would the supermarket stand legally if they were all full, and another disabled driver arrived? They would not be obliged to paint a new disabled bay there and then. In the case of the bus, were it to be full on approaching the bus stop containing an able-bodied passenger, and in the absence of anyone signalling that they want to get off, the driver would simply drive by. If the would-be passenger were wheelchair-bound, surely the driver would be under no greater obligation to stop?

Parliament, not the judiciary, must take the next step. Lord Denning was famous for forcing parliament's hand by interpreting law in such a way as to make it unworkable. I think we see the same process here in a different form, in that the Court has deliberately refused to explain and interpret the law beyond its words. To do so would have been to have opened the floodgates to further actions based on any one point of view. Sensibly, they have left it to the government of the day to take this further if they wish to do so.

Which they will certainly not wish to do. Hard cases make for bad law. They will leave things as they are, which is to require transport operators to provide spaces for wheelchairs, but leave it to the decency of other passengers to allow use of the same. This is not criticism of the mother of the sleeping child in the pushchair, whom I believe (having a week-old grandson to add to my collection) to have acted reasonably in refusing to remove said child and fold the buggy. Most times, that will suffice, but no less a person than Dame Tanny Grey-Thompson tells of receiving verbal abuse on buses and trains when usurping an able bodied passenger from the space designed to keep her wheelchair from blocking the aisle.

I hope to be able to read the judgment in full. The reasons behind the ruling are often not those reported in the media.

Once again, FT,N you have cut through the fog of obfuscation on a complicated issue, like a shaft of blinding sunlight ! Your contributions to this forum are greatly appreciated by me, at least! If any other forum members feel the same way, please press the 'like' button !

The full text of the Court of Appeal judgement is available on the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website, at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/firstgroup-plc-v-paulley/

BBC News at Ten reports that Mr Pooley is appealing & taking the case to the Supreme Court.

Believes equality means giving the disabled priority.

I am much obliged, CfN! And thankful also for the kind comments of chuffed, and votes of others.

Long answer:

It seems to me that the main point of law here is found in regulation 12 (4) of the The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990, which prohibit the carriage of a person in a wheelchair other than in the wheelchair space, appropriately restrained, with the driver bearing the onus of discretion and responsibility. This is the trump card. Everything else is either (rather badly thought out and drafted) guidance to accompany those regulations, or reference to the Equality Act 2010, which majors on discrimination, none of which is particularly relevant - what was formerly referred to as obiter dicta in law books.  If it isn't possible to accommodate a wheelchair user on a bus, then he cannot be discriminated against by reason of his disability if that is the reason why he cannot be carried.*

I see that an appeal to the Supreme Court is being considered, something that must be utter music to the ears of lawyers everywhere. The issue concerns disability, which is sensitive, but the facts are not in doubt. Any appeal must therefore be on a point of law, and the law doesn't seem to be particularly unclear either. But for the sensitivity of the case, the aggrieved Mr Paulley would be refused leave to appeal further by the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court would refuse to hear it because the law and its application in this case are clear. The Supreme Court can still hear the case if it feels there is an important point of public interest. That is undeniable, but they can only interpret the law. That legislation, after the Court of Appeal judgment, now looks like fine words about a noble idea, but with little strength - the inhabitants of our former colony may refer to it as "All mouth and no trousers".

So back to the legislature it is, then. You made the bus companies, at no small expense, provide for space for a wheelchair. You also made drivers responsible for the safety of their passengers within the confines of their company's stated policy and the law relating to the operation of public transport. Your legislation has been found wanting, or maybe not, on two occasions at least, so what do you want to do now?

Parliament could vote to make it compulsory for a wheelchair space to be cleared for a wheelchair-bound passenger, but would have to consider the safety of, as this case shows, a sleeping child in a pushchair. A mother, supported by a pressure group, could mount a similar challenge, with case law behind her.* Or it could require operators to revise their own policies, in which case the policies would have to become part of the law to take real effect. Or it could, and this is what I will take to Ladbrokes, set up a commission of some kind to gather evidence and make recommendations as to what form of consultation should be conducted to enable... etc.

(* Interpretation Act 2005:

Section 6: Gender and number.

In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,^
(a)words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;
(b)words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;
(c)words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.

So there. Now I do feel like I am writing an essay on some form of contract or tort law.)

Short answer:
No change.

Is 'tort law' something that requires Peter Andre to pop up on my TV every 5 minutes, selling the blasted things (baked Alaska anyone?) for ^4 in Iceland ?? ::)

I can't see operators willing to accept having to force the operatives to enforce the availability of these spaces, frankly....handbags will fly if pushchair owning carers have to make way for wheelchairs & they will want to be seen to support their operatives.

What case law do mothers & pushchairs have behind them please?

It's all very well saying a wheelchair user has priority over a pushchair user, but what if the occupant of the pushchair has a disability? Or what is the person operating the pushchair has a disability preventing them from folding it, or carrying their child?

As has been mentioned on this forum before, often disabilities are not obvious from looking at them.

I do have sympathy for both sides here. Often it boils down to how a situation was handled at the time.

Not often we see this forum and Mumsnet having the same debate:

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/a1648418-Interesting-Bus-Company-on-wheelchair-Pram-spaces

Agreed, although bolshie Mums perfectly able to move are going to get even bolshier now.

Reading that Mumsnet thread, I'm very glad our exchanges are nothing like theirs!

There appears to be a lot of talk of 'entitlement' over there. I wish there was a solicitor on there that could explain their legal entitlement!

If operatives are to be required to enforce, I can see operators simply banning pushchairs & buggies....a simpler process that removes the requirement on operatives. Passes to be developed to enable anyone with a disabled need to still use one maybe.

There is too much jumping to conclusion a pushchair contains an able baby, not here but on other internet sites. A good friend has a disabled 2 year old, and it's not a simple case of taking her out of the pushchair.
To an untrained eye she looks like a normal toddler in a normal pushchair, but the pushchair contains additional support and potentially dangerous for her to held out of the pushchair.

Probably reasonable, comparing the number of able kids to disabled kids that use pushchairs? Musty be at least 90/10 in able bodied kids?

That is an excellent thought - indeed our family has experience, and there's an assumption that young = fully able. But had the child in the pushchair been disabled in this case, it would never have got to the stage it has because Mr Paulley would be arguing for the precedence of a disable 36 year old (himself) over a disabled 2 year old.

Another reason that he'll never win

Taking this slightly toilet bound but very relevant nonetheless.

So someone who has a disability who needs to use an accessibility compliant facility has priority over someone who is already in it? Errr no... It doesn't. In most places baby changing facilities are provided in disabled toilets so it's a very similar scenario. So should I have the right to turf out a mother changing a baby? No. Of course not. The facility is provided as appropriate, that very moment in time it was in use and I needed to wait my turn.

So I think it's poor form for the case to go to the Supreme Court over a point of priority for Disabled Passengers rather than equality.

That being said. Those who are fully able-bodied and exploit what is a basic necessity for some passengers/users less fortunate are the ones I think the original case was getting at.

It is a rather sensitive issue and there really is no ideal solution. The basic fact of the matter is simple. If someone less fortunate needs the space and it is being used inappropriately. Then it should be provided. If it is already occupied by someone with greater needs. Then the facility offering has reached capacity and that's just unfortunate.

I can see some very bad case law in the making here if people aren't careful......

Sadly, some folk are still very much in the belief that disability confines you to a wheelchair. A guesstimate survey for every 100 people in the UK... (http://www.crohnsandcolitis.org.uk/Resources/CrohnsAndColitisUK/Images/Crohns_and_Colitis_UK_Media_Release_IBD_Sport_and_Fitness.pdf) 4 of them will suffer with Crohns Disease or Colitis (Forms of Inflammatory Bowel Disease) ... So that means in a hypothetical group of myself and 100 people. 96 of them will have better digestive systems than I do :-X ::) :-[

How many of those would assume that all is well with me?

Then how many would assume everything in my quirky little head is in order?

Fact is... Most are very quick to pass judgment which can have rather controversial and even embarrassing results...

Going off on a tangent now... But the hoodie has come out because of the recent cold weather... I have noticed a sudden rise in ticket checks in First Class and being more closely observed by store detectives... Just another reason why judging is bad... Even though I perhaps do it myself in some cases ::) :-X :-[

Not quite the same as a facility required in order to enable someone to travel, though? If it wasn't there, he wouldn't be physically *able* to travel. You could, even if it meant alighting at stations to use the convenience at the station.


Agreed / yes it was

But on look the disabled child doesn't look any different to an able 2 year old. Do you want to risk challenging without being able to identify if this is the case. I certainly wouldn't.

Ban on pushchairs unless folded or a identifiable pass being shown?

Need for a new pass, but easily developed/distributed.

I've been talking to a close friend of my wife - She was one of our bridesmaids in fact when we got married. She is wheelchair bound and she has the opinion the judge has made the right decision. Her belief is it should be first come first served.

The problem is that there are far more pushchair users than wheelchair users. There could easily be times where the wheelchair user might not be able to board any bus....and that just isn't right

That's a very interesting point. Which has just prompted me for something I didn't consider. Coach Services - Some of which do not have any means of accommodating a wheelchair. Although I understand this is going to become a legal requirement from 2020?

The toilet based scenario was more a generic issue outside of transport for places such as shopping malls etc. But the concept of baby changing facilities being provided in accessible toilets as is the case in many places was the comparison I was using there.

I think the basic basic bottom line we should all agree on is that if someone is using such a space when they really ought not to be, then they shouldn't kick up a fuss when someone with a genuine need wants to use the space.

That's effectively what I was trying to say... :)

Even less frequently that we see train buffs subscribing to Mumsnet, especially when the topic concerns buses.

Nah. It's wot we woz tort at school.


I'm not even a barrack-room solicitor, although I do a good line in "entitlement" (or more often lack thereof). However, I am prepared to spout sh shout spite on behalf of anyone who feels hard done by for a bargain 50 guineas per hour, with discounts for droit de seigneur (terms and conditions apply).

What we do see here is that, at least in terms of public transport, there is little by way of entitlement, but much by way of opportunity to form a contract to be carried, despite the various athletic competitions performed at the 2012 Paralympic games.

Discus.

Ouch!  :D

I was better at shot putt myself.

Can I refer you to the answer given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram?

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which funded (*) Mr Paulley's side has issued the following press statement: (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/commission-responds-court-judgement-disability-discrimination-case)
(*) a public body funded by the Department for Education

Mr Paulley's own site: http://www.kingqueen.org.uk/

So taxpayers/Government are funding a case that Government are at fault for lax legislation (in the view of EHRC)?

Surely it's just the normal way of determining what the law is? Government (usually) drafts a bill, parliament (including the Lords) hack it around a bit and then pass it into law, and eventually the courts (in ascending appellate order) look at it and other statues and regulations and tell us what we are meant to be doing. If there is a lot of confusion, a test case may be needed - which is what this is. It may even be one of the things the EHRC was set up to do.

Indeed if you look at it that way it is First that are doing the EHRC a bit of a favour in helping to clear up the legal position as it stands presently. As I think First has pointed out, it has been involved in at least one similar case where the first court ruled for them which was not appealed by the other party. No one benefits where the result of a case seems to be a lottery.

Huh?  I thought the court had supported access on the same basis. What it failed to support was a something that favoured disabled people over able bodied.  "If there's room you can get on" is the usual rule, and the case requested that to be changed to "If there's room you can get on, but if someone disabled comes along and there isn't room for them, you have to get off again to make way for them"

I actually have more sympathy for disabled people than may comment may imply - the "survival of the fittest" rush as Paddington where the elderly, weak, disabled, heavily laden, chubby, occasional long distance travellers fail to get seats when the fit young shorter distance commuters get a comfortable ride.

I suspect their viewpoint is pragmatic, not legalistic. Most of a bus is in effect reserved for non wheelchair users, as you couldn't get one in there even if the driver would let you try. They want the bit that is reserved for wheelchairs to at least be always available for the first one to come along. Not unreasonable, but "reasonable" in that sense isn't what appeal courts do.

An update, from the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36534907):

Googling Mr Paulley reveals he has taken in excess of 40 companies to court for discrimination, winning compensation against most. He was seeking a few grand here as well.

Talking to a bus driver friend about this case, and my own opinion we both think it's unsafe for a parent with two young children to try and hold them both on the bus, especially if standing is required even holding 1 child could be unsafe.

There is 18 months between my oldest two, so required use of a double buggy for a small time before the older one could walk properly. The buggy when folded was still quite spacious and many of the newer buses such as the Optare Solo don't have a luggage rack so nowhere to store a folded buggy anyway.

Not sure about buggies, wheelchairs or buses but several lawyers will have new Aston Martins by the time this is over.

Mr Paulley's blog may be found at https://www.kingqueen.org.uk and Freedom of Information requests he has made and the responses received are logged at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/doug_paulley

His wetherspoons blog is amusing. Pathetic but amusing. From his Twitter he seems to complain about everything and anything. Good luck if he ever turns up at your business.

However maybe someone like this is good for business improving?

I suspect he complained about the food being cold by the time he had finished measuring it and got around to eating it!  ;D

What many people think just a few will say, and it's good for a business to have the occasional critical friend.  How much that term 'friend' applies when the whole thing is broadcast is an interesting discussion. Business owners who find themselves subject to test cases where courts at different levels don't agree with each other must wonder how on earth their staff member at 'the sharp end' was supposed to be able to get it right in the white heat of the incident, even with potentially well-informed training and guidance before hand from HQ.   Indeed, I feel there may an element of a compromise as I'm writing this thread between having my freedom to express my views and potentially risking those views offending in such a way that they are vigorously challenged, with the challenge sponsored by a third party resource.

Perhaps we should all have a whip round to enable Mr Paulley to stay at Well House for a while. I think I can safely say that he will sorely ( surely?) try the patience of the blessed Saint Graham of Ellis !

Didn't mean to sound like that.  As a business, the customers we want are the ones who want us - find us online / get recommended to us; there's a wide variety of accommodation available and no one place suites everyone.  Long standing members may remember the time we had three groups stay who hadn't self-selected in that way, and the tears that followed.

This is worse in my opinion than a pushchair occupying a wheelchair space. . Suitcases piled up in the wheelchair space of the HST. 1C81 today contained 19 suitcases, some dangerously stacked.
Moving 1 pushchair much easier than 19 suitcases! I tweeted GWR a photo who responded that feedback will be issued to the train manager. Feedback to one TM isn't enough as a regular sight as coach C doesn't have any luggage rack at that coach end.

This sort of thing?

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/excessluggage153.jpg)

That's yesterday morning - not on an HST but on a 153.

Yet the incredible thing is that rather than complain about the lack of seats (this stack was blocking three), commuters helped the owners off the train with a cheerful smile.   Gotta love the atmosphere on a 153!

Hmm.  ::)

I'm generally such a helpful sort of chap, particularly when I'm out and about on the railways, that I too would probably have assisted those passengers off the train with their luggage.

Years ago, I did that for a couple of American tourists getting off an HST at Bath Spa (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9450.msg97871#msg97871), for example - they were touchingly grateful for the gesture.  ;D

Seen far worse than that on trains heading to/from the Westcountry at holiday times....on occasions partially blocking the aisles as well as filling up all other space.

Yes much like that, my photo wouldn't upload for some reason.

I came home from Norwich on Thursday. On the service PAD-BRI, a numpty left a pushchair fully assembled and full of all his and his family's luggage, against the off-side door of the carriage, presumably thinking that would not get in the way as it was opposite the open door at PAD. Of course, it wasn't at Reading, leading to consternation for boarding travellers and embarrassment for our man, who merely moved it across to the other door. He was torn off a strip by the TM within a few moments of leaving the station.

Isn't / wasn't / didn't one of the Welsh narrow gauge lines have all the platforms on one side and no doors on the opposite side of the carriages?  Talyllyn?

Mr Paulley has won his appeal at the Supreme Court:

https://www.kingqueen.org.uk/we-won-the-case-against-firstbus/

Although the Supreme Court didn't go so far as to require bus operators to have a policy in their conditions of carriage enforcing wheelchair spaces on buses. Essentially what they've said is that First Bus didn't go far enough in this case in persuading or pressurising the non-compliant buggy user. First Bus' "first come, first served" policy on the wheelchair space was incompatible with legislation.

Supreme Court summary:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0025-press-summary.pdf

First Bus response:

http://www.firstgroupplc.com/news-and-media/latest-news/2017/18-01-17.aspx

They say nothing about the requirement to provide a space for wheelchairs though - politely advising all users won't go far enough though, as the Supreme Court have indicated.

A requirement that all buggies be folded before being allowed on the bus would be the easiest policy to enforce, after very thorough advance notifications of a policy change though, along with somewhere to store them. Effectively, I can see a further loss of seats.

Just saw the article, and to be honest First Group and passengers are in a horrible place.

No one wants to discriminate against wheelchair users, and some prams/pushchairs do not fold, either physically or practically.

The interesting aspect of this case, is that the original complainant materially suffered because of the poor service, he had to wait over 30 minutes for another bus and missed a train connection.

If pax want to use the bus, they need to obtain equipment they need that meets transport reqirements, just as those commuters who need to cycle need fold-up bikes. Nowt different here.

What a horrendous situation. From the Supreme Court press release:
Every single thing here seems bad. Passengers are "pressurised" to make space where the bus operator has not. First Bus are clearly failing in their legal duty to make "avoid substantial disadvantage" (let alone make decent provision!). And we are faced with a catch 22 where one passenger or the other can be practically held responsible for the lack of space for the other.

So, your solution? One could clear the lower deck of seating?....downstairs for buggis 7 wheelchairs, upstairs for able-bodied wanting a seat

There is provision for driver discretion in the ruling.
I'm having a Facebook discussion with two wheelchair user friends. Their interpretations are that a pram should only be enforced to move if it's safe for the baby to be held and the bus has somewhere for the pram to be stowed. They are both of the opinion it's unsafe for say one accompanying adult to hold more than one baby for example, so wouldn't expect twins or more to be moved.

Whilst a victory for disabled in general. I disagree that Mr Paulley has won as his demands have not been agreed by the Supreme Court. One of his original demands was for able bodied standees to be asked to leave a nearly full bus to make way for a wheelchair.

They can't be discriminated against is the rule - so if the bus is full & no one is being admitted, that is not discrimination. So he'd never obtain that ruling

You'd need seating downstairs too for people who need to sit but cannot climb stairs. Unless you installed a lift...

He's won in the sense that he was discriminated against. First Bus did not go far enough in making reasonable adjustments as required by the Equality Act.

One does not demand anything of a court. Mr Paulley wanted First Bus (and, by extension, all bus operators) to go further in their adjustments, and he was entitled seek that when bringing the claim for discrimination. That's not making demands. Weighing up both sides the Supreme Court have ruled what are the reasonable adjustments bus operators should make under the Equality Act. The defendants (First Bus) fell short of this so Mr Paulley's claim was upheld.

He won. Maybe he didn't get everything he wanted. An analogy would be a football team winning 1-0 instead of the 2-0 they would have liked.

How times have changed, when I was a bus conductor in the early 70s, no-one would ever have tried to get on the bus with a child still sitting in a push chair, they always folded it up and stored it in the luggage space (usually under the stairs) ( the push chair, not the child!) I believe that if you take a push chair/buggy etc on a train you have to fold it up, so why not on a bus?

From the BBC report (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38663322) I noted


And - to me - that comes across as a demand for discrimination in favour of the wheelchair user.  When looking at a situation, my wise Dad (who passed away last Sunday) suggested looking at it from the opposite end and seeing how it then looked.  So if a wheelchair user wants to be able to force a none-wheelchair user who's already on board off, we should consider how it would look for an able bodied person to be able to force a wheelchair user off, and if it wouldn't, we should consider the objectives as described by Mr Fry to be unreasonable.

Condolences, Grahame.

On the topic: I'm not sure what the solicitor meant. It could be interpreted that way, but it seems more likely he meant there's no right to force wheelchair users off the bus (because of a lack of space) but he's not yet satisfied because, equally, they don't have a right to a space.

At best, dangerously worded comments from the solicitor then, but with "but not that far yet" on the end, I fear it's a stated desire for further power sought for the elbow - or the wheelchair - of the disabled user.

Other comment appreciates - I note CfN has started a thread in Frequent Posters.

When I was a passenger in the early 1970s, the thought of anyone getting on a bus in a wheelchair had not been - well, thought.

The first wheelchair accessible buses were launched around the mid 90s. Step entrance buses had a handle of some form in the middle of the step making a narrow entrance

From The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/08/wheelchair-users-uk-enhanced-rights-bus-travel-supreme-court)

Unfolded Pram ban?......easiest answer.