Bus discrimination case

[whole diary]

[grahame]

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^▸ (Headquarters).   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.

[chuffed]

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 !

[grahame]

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.

[LiskeardRich]

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

[grahame]

This is worse in my opinion than a pushchair occupying a wheelchair space. . Suitcases piled up in the wheelchair space of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train). 1C81 today contained 19 suitcases, some dangerously stacked.

This sort of thing?



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!

[Chris from Nailsea]

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^▸ (High Speed Train) at Bath Spa, for example - they were touchingly grateful for the gesture. 

[TaplowGreen]

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.

[LiskeardRich]

This is worse in my opinion than a pushchair occupying a wheelchair space. . Suitcases piled up in the wheelchair space of the HST^▸ (High Speed Train). 1C81 today contained 19 suitcases, some dangerously stacked.

This sort of thing?



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!

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

[TonyK]

I came home from Norwich on Thursday. On the service PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains), 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^‡(resolve) within a few moments of leaving the station.

[grahame]

I came home from Norwich on Thursday. On the service PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-BRI^» (Bristol Temple Meads - next trains), 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^‡(resolve) 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?

[JayMac]

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

[ChrisB]

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.

[simonw]

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.

[ChrisB]

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.

[Bmblbzzz]

What a horrendous situation. From the Supreme Court press release:

Lord Neuberger gives the lead judgment (with which Lord Reed agrees) allowing the appeal but only
to the extent that FirstGroup’s policy requiring a driver to simply request a non-wheelchair user to
vacate the space without taking any further steps was unjustified. Where a driver who has made such a
request concludes that a refusal is unreasonable, he or she should consider some further step to
pressurise the non-wheelchair user to vacate the space, depending on the circumstances.

Under section 29 of the 2010 Act, as a “public service provider”, FirstGroup must not discriminate
against a person requiring its services by not providing the person with the service, and it must make
“reasonable adjustments” to avoid substantial disadvantage to disabled persons

The Recorder’s judgment effectively required a policy that could lead to a non-wheelchair user being
ordered off the bus [40-45]. The Court of Appeal was right to reject this. An absolute rule that any
non-wheelchair user must vacate the space would be unreasonable: there are many circumstances in
which it could be unreasonable to expect a non-wheelchair user to vacate a space, and even more, to
get off the bus, even where the space is needed by a wheelchair user

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.