ScotRail deny blind man and guide dog Sleeper booking

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

From The Scotsman:

SCOTRAIL is urgently reviewing its Caledonian Sleeper booking policies after refusing a reservation from blind ski racer John Dickinson-Lilley and his guide dog because he did not give the required two days^ notice.

The sportsman was unable to book a berth between London and Aviemore for tonight when he phoned the train operator at 5pm yesterday.

However, the train operator apologised after Dickinson-Lilley highlighted his plight on the social media website Twitter, gaining the backing of hundreds of people including former First Minister Jack (now Lord) McConnell.

ScotRail^s sister firm First Great Western said there was no minimum booking period for passengers with guide dogs on its London-Penzance sleeper, if berths were available.

Dickinson-Lilley said: ^I wonder how many ordinary blind people who may not have my confidence or professional background in campaigning would have reacted.

^d guess they simply wouldn^t have travelled and accepted ScotRail^s discriminatory policy.

^It appals me that just months after London 2012 there is a huge failure to understand that disabled people are ordinary people ^ we have last minute changes to plans, emergencies and quite frankly the right to travel whenever we like without having to book days in advance.

^I regularly get refused by taxi drivers, in shops and at restaurants simply because they fail to acknowledge or respect equality law.^

He earlier tweeted: ^Been refused by ScotRail on 2mrw nights sleeper cause I have a guidedog! Supposed to be ski training with team in Aviemore.

^Told couldn^t travel w/out 48h notice as need book a cleaner!

^Unlawful under the Equality Act 2010.^

ScotRail said it was ^urgently reviewing its procedures to speed up the preparation of sleeping berths after dogs have travelled in them^.

It has also apologised to Dickinson-Lilley and offered him and his dog a free berth tonight.

A ScotRail spokesman said: ^We are genuinely sorry that we didn^t act more quickly on this.

^We have launched an urgent review into our current cleaning systems, with the aim of speeding up the preparation of Sleeper berths in future.^

Dickinson-Lilley is the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)^s only male blind ski racer and a member of the British Disabled Ski Team development squad, who is hoping to compete in the 2018 Winter Paralympics in Korea.

ScotRail said it permitted ^assistance dogs^ on the Sleeper and waived the cleaning charge that applied for other passengers who brought dogs on board.

It said it complied with all relevant legislation, including the Equality Act.

[swrural]

This article provoked a hefty discussion chez swrural; not so much on the notice period, which was daft, but on the idea of dogs in sleeping compartments. 

Our experience of dog owners is such that we would not care to be allocated a compartment in which dogs were allowed.

A blind person does not need his dog in the compartment, having been welcomed by the attendant, and shewn where facilities are.  Guide dogs are only needed where guidance is required.

It's the thought of those dog owners (not so much blind ones because they have large dogs) who would have these things on the bed, in the bed with them even, or even on the floor, where one might wish to place one's bare feet on getting out, that disgusts us.

Expecting hefty reaction from dog lovers, as sure as night follows day. 

The dogs belong in the guard's compartment.   

[bobm]

It isn't just guide dogs for the blind though, which I am sure many people would prefer to remain with them while in strange surroundings, there is the wider issue of assistance dogs.  They can alert their owners to such things as "hypos" in diabetics - which clearly means they DO have to stay close to their handlers.

[thetrout]

A blind person does not need his dog in the compartment, having been welcomed by the attendant, and shewn where facilities are.  Guide dogs are only needed where guidance is required.

And suppose the owner wanted to go to the Lounge Car? or much more likely, wanted the toilet during the night? Neither of those are in the cabin... Guidance would be required in both cases

It isn't just guide dogs for the blind though, which I am sure many people would prefer to remain with them while in strange surroundings, there is the wider issue of assistance dogs.  They can alert their owners to such things as "hypos" in diabetics - which clearly means they DO have to stay close to their handlers.

100% Agree with that. They can also assist with other things during emergency situations... A fire being the most obvious situation, which has happened before on a Sleeper Service on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line). So yes I agree, they definitely DO need to stay with their handlers.

[LiskeardRich]

It seems to me that the Scotrail have one policy for all dogs and dont treat assistance dogs differently. There are many places where normal dogs would definitely not be permitted, yet can turn up with an assistance dog without any questions asked.

[anthony215]

It isn't just guide dogs for the blind though, which I am sure many people would prefer to remain with them while in strange surroundings, there is the wider issue of assistance dogs.  They can alert their owners to such things as "hypos" in diabetics - which clearly means they DO have to stay close to their handlers.

I certainly agree to this since my father is blind and takes his guide dog everywhere with him.

I know  its not the sleeper but I know he has never had any problems when traveling with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) or ATW^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) as well as on our local bus services.

[swrural]

The problem I cited has not only to do with hygiene, but also the fact that some people are allergic to certain animal fur.

Having thought about this, if the attendant were to lay down a specially sized mat that fits the walking area and further warns the passenger not to allow the dog on the furniture, the cleaning would be simplified and no longer be such a big deal.

Of course dogs in sitting areas are not the same problem for obvious reasons.  They should still not be allowed on seats, or laps, which I have seen happen.

[JayMac]

Allergies are not covered by the Equality Act. Blindness and other disabilities requiring the use of an assistance dog are.

Anyone requiring use of an assistance dog should not be put at a disadvantage over someone who doesn't.

An assistance dog user should be able to go wherever an able bodied person can. No phoning up to give notice, no barring use of a sleeper berth because a mat isn't available. No refusal on the grounds that the next person to use the berth may get a bit sniffy because of dog hairs. No separating dog from user. No additional charges and so on.

Please can we separate the access given to pet dogs from that which is required by law for assistance dogs.

It makes no difference to the legal position if a subsequent user of a berth has an allergy.

[swrural]

Agreed BNM.  I was just suggesting what could be good practice regardless of the reasons of the passenger for wanting the dog with her.

My suggestions should make life easier for the cleaners, that's all. 

[grahame]

I've been wondering whether to comment ... here goes

As owner / operator of a hotel that welcomes dogs (and I mean "welcomes" and not just "tolerates"), and with some customers who are very sensitive indeed to hairs / allegies etc,  I can assure you that the two can happily co-exist.  It helps us in that we have a superb team of dedicated staff.

We usually know ahead numbers that are coming and it's unlikely that someone will turn up having booked with a dog we knew nothing about before hand - and that's whether the dog is a pet or an assistance animal.  So that helps for our planning and having facilities in place.   Walk in guests ... we get only very occasionally, and our decision as to whether to accept the person is based on many factors, most of which are very far from "what animal(s) do they have if any".  It mostly comes down to what they're looking for, what we can offer, and their attitude /demeanour and approach.

[vacmanfan]

This article provoked a hefty discussion chez swrural; not so much on the notice period, which was daft, but on the idea of dogs in sleeping compartments. 

Our experience of dog owners is such that we would not care to be allocated a compartment in which dogs were allowed.

A blind person does not need his dog in the compartment, having been welcomed by the attendant, and shewn where facilities are.  Guide dogs are only needed where guidance is required.

It's the thought of those dog owners (not so much blind ones because they have large dogs) who would have these things on the bed, in the bed with them even, or even on the floor, where one might wish to place one's bare feet on getting out, that disgusts us.

Expecting hefty reaction from dog lovers, as sure as night follows day. 

The dogs belong in the guard's compartment.   

I hope the next guide dog you walk past takes a chunk out of your leg. 

[grahame]

[snip ...]

Expecting hefty reaction from dog lovers, as sure as night follows day. 

The dogs belong in the guard's compartment.   

I hope the next guide dog you walk past takes a chunk out of your leg. 

I've received the following comment from a member:

As much as I disagree with swrurals comments on this thread... I think vacmanfan is on the borderline of a personal attack here maybe?

I agree - it's borderline.   I'm leaving the comments in place in this case, as swrural has in encouraged a heavy reaction.  But let's not get personal, folks!

[swrural]

I don't mind as I did predict the reaction and so deserved it.  I also thought my sad smiley was clear and later I also posted amelioratory suggestions.  My comment was based on the fact that dogs are not allowed in shops selling food, so there must be a reason for that.

I did once actually have a chunk taken out my leg by a dog (completely out of the blue) so I have already been punished.
Despite that appalling experience, I actually like dogs, but I think we have to think of everyone in these situations and my later suggestions were hopefully in the reasonable direction.

[JayMac]

My comment was based on the fact that dogs are not allowed in shops selling food, so there must be a reason for that.

A common misconception is that. There are no laws that prevent dogs going into the public areas of shops or other businesses selling food. It's entirely at the shop/business owner's discretion.

Dogs in food preparation areas is however prevented by EU^» (European Union - about) Regulation:

REGULATION (EC) No 852/2004 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Chapter IX, para. 4

With said regulation in England and Wales being encompassed by the Food Safety Act 1990.


Now, in downtown Seoul, dogs are of course allowed in some kitchens. 

[Chris from Nailsea]

I don't mind as I did predict the reaction and so deserved it.  I also thought my sad smiley was clear ...

Thanks for posting that explanatory comment, swrural - and that may account for the reaction you received.  That particular smiley is the 'angry' one: the 'sad' one is .  Hence your original comment may unfortunately have been taken as being rather more forthright than you intended.