Disabled scooter user humiliated by Train Manager for using disabled space on GWR service.

[AlterEgo]

You may have missed the numerous times I've referenced the December 2017 RSSB report into mobility scooter access to trains. If they meet the size requirements that apply to wheelchairs then they are, for the purposes of legislation, classed as wheelchairs too.

GWR's policy, (which is not a legal requirement) is seemingly at odds with this.

And I'll say this again too. Regardless of any policy, Tanyalee Davis and her mobility aid were boarded and settled at Plymouth, into a unreserved disabled space, without issue. Retrospective application of a company policy after that should not happen. And certainly not happen to accommodate a pram.

And once more. GWR have said unequivocally that this should not have happened.

So essentially, you're suggesting that GWR's own policy of requiring even small mobility scooters to be folded and stowed as luggage is itself a breach of the Equality Act?

Would someone in a foldable manual wheelchair who can transfer to a seat be "immune" (for want of a better word!) from requests to fold their wheelchair, if it was sat, unfolded, in the wheelchair space, and another wheelchair user who could not transfer boarded?

Whatever the intricacies of the law, we can both agree that being asked to move your mobility aid for a pram is quite egregiously wrong.

 

[bnm]

But you should note that, when discussing the relevant legislation, the RSSB report states the following:

Indeed.

"No clear basis... for differentiating..."

 

[Bromley boy]

Indeed.

"No clear basis... for differentiating..."

But there’s no requirement for them to be accommodated in the first place (of course they are where possible).

The assertions on this thread that GWR is acting illegally by requiring scooters to be folded are baseless, with reference to the RSSB guidance you have cited.

There is also clearly grandfathering in place - not every station is wheelchair accessible (most in my area aren’t) so clearly wheelchair bound passengers cannot use these stations.

 

[matt_world2004]

So essentially, you're suggesting that GWR's own policy of requiring even small mobility scooters to be folded and stowed as luggage is itself a breach of the Equality Act?

Would someone in a foldable manual wheelchair who can transfer to a seat be "immune" (for want of a better word!) from requests to fold their wheelchair, if it was sat, unfolded, in the wheelchair space, and another wheelchair user who could not transfer boarded?

Whatever the intricacies of the law, we can both agree that being asked to move your mobility aid for a pram is quite egregiously wrong.

I would say even if someone can transfer to a seat the requirement to fold their wheelchair /mobility scooter would be a wrong one.

1.)while they might be able to get out of their wheelchair and walk short distances. Thst doesnt equal to being able to fold their wheelchair
2.)Even if they have help to fold their wheelchair they may need to unfold it at short notice(for example to go to the toilet or for any other reason) which their may not be someone available to help them unfold their wheelchair.
3.) for a disabled persons personal dignity policies should be set up to allow them to be as independent as possible. Obviously. There can be technical issues preventing this (for example requiring a ramp to board or alight) but at no point should policy be inforced in such away that requires a person with a disability to be dependent on others more than the bare minimum.

 

[AlterEgo]

Indeed.

"No clear basis... for differentiating..."

It does seem a little perverse that the Equality Act would prevent a non-transferring, wheelchair-bound person from travelling if the only disabled space was occupied by a small wheelchair or scooter, owned by an ambulant person who requires it for traversing longer distances, who was not sat on the scooter but instead in a seat, and which is designed to be folded and stowed, but for whatever reason, was not.

I am not familiar enough with the law and wouldn't suggest you are wrong here, but it does open a can of worms.

 

[bnm]

Whatever the intricacies of the law, we can both agree that being asked to move your mobility aid for a pram is quite egregiously wrong.

Which is all that is important in this case.

The many other hypothetical situations raised in this thread, such as whether a manual wheelchair should be folded in a specific circumstance, are an interesting diversion, but aren't really pertinent to Tanyalee Davis' experience. I'd suggest they be debated separately as a when an actual incident arises.

I see no reason why a mobility aid that meets the 'reference wheelchair' dimensions should be treated any differently to a classic wheelchair. The RSSB, ORR and DfT seem to agree. GWR's scooter policy doesn't. That, I think, needs addressing. Hopefully further clarification, benefitting disabled users of mobility aids that are not classic wheelchair shaped, will come from this incident.

 

[Robertj21a]

Would you care to explain why? Its is generally well accepted that representatives of TOCs will doubtless view the various threads on here, either just in a personal context, or maybe in an official one. So what is to say that someone involved in the decision making process is reading this right now? Humans, all humans are susceptible to suggestion or common consensus and it is entirely possible that some of the "facts" speculated about here could find their way subconsciously into the decision making process. It can and does happen, in my past time as union rep I have come across similar situations in employee / employer disputes. So no, it is not ridiculous.

Sorry, you are being quite ridiculous. If you had your way we would be unable to openly discuss a whole range of issues.

 

[nottsnurse]

The many other hypothetical situations raised in this thread, such as whether a manual wheelchair should be folded in a specific circumstance, are an interesting diversion, but aren't really pertinent to Tanyalee Davis' experience. I'd suggest they be debated separately as a when an actual incident arises.

Indeed. Once again it seems that certain posters are trying to muddy the waters in relation to Tanyalee's appalling treatment, where she was discriminated against in order to favour the comfort of an able-bodied individual.

 

[Bromley boy]

I see no reason why a mobility aid that meets the 'reference wheelchair' dimensions should be treated any differently to a classic wheelchair. The RSSB, ORR and DfT seem to agree. GWR's scooter policy doesn't. That, I think, needs addressing. Hopefully further clarification, benefitting disabled users of mobility aids that are not classic wheelchair shaped, will come from this incident.

Worth noting as well that the RSSB guidance is just that: guidance; a statement of best practice. It would be ridiculous for an unused, unfolded scooter to prevent the carriage of wheelchair whose user might be unable to transfer to a seat, for example.

Common sense and co-operation by all parties is required. In this instance the guard should have required both the scooter and the pram to be folded.

 

[nottsnurse]

In this instance the guard should have required both the scooter and the pram to be folded.

Nope.

In this instance the TM should have insisted on the pram being folded up and then, only if another disabled passenger were to try to board the service, ask if Tanyalee/her carer would fold her mobility aid, if practicable*.


(*As already mentioned, despite the potential ability to fold her mobility aid it may be impractical if she needs it to mobilise short distances whilst on-board, such as to the toilet.)

 

[Bromley boy]

Nope.

In this instance the TM should have insisted on the pram being folded up and then, only if another disabled passenger were to try to board the service, ask if Tanyalee/her carer would fold her mobility aid, if practicable*.


(*As already mentioned, despite the potential ability to fold her mobility aid it may be impractical if she needs it to mobilise short distances whilst on-board, such as to the toilet.)

Except that he is a GWR guard and their own policy states that scooters without a permit etc. (as outlined above) must be capable of being folded.

To be clear I don’t disagree that the guard may have made the wrong call in this case. The best thing to do would have been to follow his employer’s policy to the letter and require both to be folded. If that policy itself is wrong/unlawful (although I’ve seen no evidence that it is) that is not a matter for an operational staff member to adjudicate on.

 

[Bantamzen]

Sorry, you are being quite ridiculous. If you had your way we would be unable to openly discuss a whole range of issues.

Yeah, and I'd have them taken outside and shot too...

I have already articulated why I think this thread is stepping into an area it shouldn't, because I have dealt with situations where public forums cause issues in disputes. If you can't understand that then there is nothing more I can say to you, other than I sincerely hope you never find yourself in an employment dispute that finds itself in the public domain. You'd have a very different view if you did!

 

[Darandio]

(*As already mentioned, despite the potential ability to fold her mobility aid it may be impractical if she needs it to mobilise short distances whilst on-board, such as to the toilet.)

Makes me even more amazed how on earth she manages to walk on the stage in the manner she does. Or stand up for long periods of time, only taking occasional breaks to sit on a stool.

This isn't intended to be funny about the situation, but I think many are underestimating how mobile this lady is considering her situation. She does very well indeed.

 

[nottsnurse]

Makes me even more amazed how on earth she manages to walk on the stage in the manner she does. Or stand up for long periods of time, only taking occasional breaks to sit on a stool.

Diastrophic dysplasia often causes chronic pain. Tanyalee in particular has scoliosis as part of her condition and also suffers from joint malformations that cause dislocations.

She performs stood, sat on a stool and sat in her mobility aid, dependant upon her ability to at the given time.

This isn't intended to be funny about the situation...

No, it appears to be intending to draw attention away from the primary issue under discussion.

...but I think many are underestimating how mobile this lady is considering her situation. She does very well indeed.

And I know (not "think") that you are underestimating just how sporadic the chronic pain and other symptoms can be with individuals who suffer from Diastrophic dysplasia.

Being able to walk onto stage one day doesn't mean that her mobility is the same every day.

 

[Jonfun]

If GWRs policy does not follow the law (as suggested earlier in this thread) then no the policy shouldn't be followed.

That's GWR's problem and not the Guard's. Many train companies ban mobility scooters unless they are folded.

 

[OneOffDave]

Makes me even more amazed how on earth she manages to walk on the stage in the manner she does. Or stand up for long periods of time, only taking occasional breaks to sit on a stool.

This isn't intended to be funny about the situation, but I think many are underestimating how mobile this lady is considering her situation. She does very well indeed.

So your 'knowledge' of how mobile she is, is based on a couple of edited bits of footage you've seen on TV and based on this, you've decided how much she needs her mobility aid. Based on similar evidence, I've determined that Usain Bolt doesn't need a car as he can run at 44mph everywhere. Disabled people can have varying levels of pain and fatigue from day to day and get sick and tired of non-disabled people judging how much they can do based on a few minutes of 'observation'

 

[Darandio]

So your 'knowledge' of how mobile she is, is based on a couple of edited bits of footage you've seen on TV and based on this, you've decided how much she needs her mobility aid.

No, I said she does very well considering her condition.

 

[Dhassell]

ITV West Country reporting GWR sent her an apology and she 'rejected' it

 

[IanD]

ITV West Country reporting GWR sent her an apology and she 'rejected' it

As she is well within her rights to do if she doesn't feel it is sincere or goes far enough

 

[bnm]

Disabled people can have varying levels of pain and fatigue from day to day and get sick and tired of non-disabled people judging how much they can do based on a few minutes of 'observation'

Hear hear. How I'd love to widen the debate on this point. The above is an accurate description how the crackpot DWP determine disability. Certainly did in my case. I went from 12 points to zero on the whim of a paramedic (moonlighting to assess PIP claims - with zero experience treating long term physical and mental health problems) despite some of my conditions worsening.

Sorry. I know. Thread drift. I'm in the appeal process and it's all still pretty raw.

 

[Bromley boy]

No, I said she does very well considering her condition.

I would suggest she has blown this incident out of all proportion, in order to score some free publicity.

The guard certainly made the wrong decision in this case but I sincerely hope the TOC takes an objective approach to any disciplinary hearing - he was clearly doing his best in a tricky situation.

 

[farleigh]

It has boosted her profile a lot I think.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The scooter was quite obviously allowed on the train. By the mere fact it was there. Tanyalee Davis received assistance boarding at Plymouth. It's clear from her videos (there are others on her YouTube channel) that the scooter is small enough to manoeuvre on a Mk3 carriage.

By her own words she is a regular rail traveller in the UK using said scooter.

That GWR had a scooter policy is of little consequence. She hasn't broken any law in being in her scooter aboard the GWR train. GWR's scooter policy doesn't give their staff carte blanche to move a disabled person from a disabled space. GWR's scooter policy doesn't give their staff the right to humiliate a disabled person over the public address. GWR's scooter policy doesn't give their staff the right to threaten disabled people with police attendance or being thrown off the train.

To address the possible 'protected characteristics' of the mother and baby. Yes, she may well have been afforded some protection under the Equality Act if her child is under 26 weeks old. Not for a broken limb, likely to heal within 12 months, though.

That doesn't though give her rights that trump those of a disabled person. In this case, on a train with only one disabled space available, unreserved for the entire journey (yes, I've checked both those points) it's first come first served.

Until I see or hear compelling evidence to the contrary, I maintain my stance on the Train Manager's continued employment.

For a repeat offence by said train manager, maybe. However before such an extreme measure there is normally a disciplinary policy and the chance of retraining. Don't get me wrong, should the investigation by GWR reveal that there was wrongdoing (and this will never be revealed publicly and nor should it), then most certainly this would warrant some kind of sanction, but to sack immediately may not be the best option.

 

[farleigh]

For a repeat offence by said train manager, maybe. However before such an extreme measure there is normally a disciplinary policy and the chance of retraining. Don't get me wrong, should the investigation by GWR reveal that there was wrongdoing (and this will never be revealed publicly and nor should it), then most certainly this would warrant some kind of sanction, but to sack immediately may not be the best option.

A measured response rather than the calls for dismissal.

 

[Bromley boy]

For a repeat offence by said train manager, maybe. However before such an extreme measure there is normally a disciplinary policy and the chance of retraining. Don't get me wrong, should the investigation by GWR reveal that there was wrongdoing (and this will never be revealed publicly and nor should it), then most certainly this would warrant some kind of sanction, but to sack immediately may not be the best option.

Indeed.

I can’t see that he did anything to constitute “gross misconduct” (usually leading to summary dismissal) in this case.

If anything, a chat with a manager about how the situation could have been handled better, would be the most appropriate solution.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Indeed.

I can’t see that he did anything to constitute “gross misconduct” (usually leading to summary dismissal) in this case.

If anything, a chat with a manager about how the situation could have been handled better, would be the most appropriate solution.

I suspect this will be more formal than that however that again is for GWR, the TM concerned and most likely the RMT rep to deal with.

 

[bnm]

I can’t see that he did anything to constitute “gross misconduct” (usually leading to summary dismissal) in this case.

Publicly humiliating a fare paying disabled passenger over the PA? Threatening police attendance and ejection? Regardless of the annoyance at being filmed, that demonstrated very poor judgement and did nothing to de-escalate. Are those 'gross misconduct' grounds? Possibly, I'd say. I think they'd constitute gross misconduct in many customer facing roles. Maybe, just maybe, a final warning if the TM has a 'clean' record. And I really hope any union the TM may be a member of doesn't make it a cause célèbre.

All that said, Tanyalee Davis has gone on record saying she doesn't want to see the train guard lose his livelihood. That is very magnanimous considering the treatment she received at the hands of this TM.

After due process, regarding all aggravating and mitigating factors, a decision will be made that nearly all of us on here won't be party to. I'd have no issue either way. Nothing changes where my sympathy lies though. Zero for the TM. 100% with Tanyalee Davis.

The most important thing for me and, after watching her latest video on YouTube, for Tanyalee Davis, is that the public transport industry and its front line staff learn from this incident.

 

[LowLevel]

I've been reading this thread with some degree of curiosity.

I shall declare an interest - I've been the guard on this particular passenger's trains in the past and probably will be again - so I won't comment on this specific case as it would be unprofessional, though I shall certainly keep tabs on it.

Firstly an observation - as an industry differing mobility aids are a bit of a hot topic at present, be they scooters (provided they meet the usual practical parameters to be carried on your common or garden train) or indeed pushchairs for infants with disabilities (to make it clear I know that's not the position with this case reference pushchairs but still, I mention it to show attention is being paid to the issue).

Consequently staff are being asked to pay more attention and be more accommodating to users of aids that are different to a standard wheelchair. I've had at least 2 briefs issued about it of late.

Secondly as an interesting hypothesis from my own position - I talk to the people I'm assisting in an attempt to better understand their needs and views on the world. I am to all intents and purposes a visually fit and healthy person (though just to prove a point, i have a joint defect that can flare up and render me unable to climb stairs or hold a pen. C'est la vie. I manage) and it is almost impossible to put yourself in their shoes.

So my question is this - the railway has traditionally viewed wheelchair users in 2 ways (there are of course shades of grey but for the purpose of this just keep it to 2) - 'confined' whereby the person remains in their chair for their journey and is entitled concessionary fares as per the appropriate Rail Delivery Group guidance.

The other is effectively 'transfer to seat' whereby the user boards the train with their aid and then takes a seat - often this is a scooter which folds away - and is not entitled to the above discounts.

At what point should the railway (and by extension it's staff) adjudicate between the 2 users should they turn up for one space and refuse to back down? I feel deeply uncomfortable in these situations and don't feel equipped to intervene for fear of ending up on a news website or in front of a disciplinary panel.

It very much feels like it's too hot to handle. Yes, by 31/12/19 the train shouldn't have just one space which will help but at present some do.

As an able bodied person how do I make that judgement call and what degree of compulsion is appropriate?

I am quite happy dealing with drunks, violent people and other assorted pond life. I always have done and have plenty of experience.

But it seems to me that far more trouble could arise from folks with the law behind them in ways we are poorly equipped to foresee.

I know it's a bit of a ramble but as someone who could get caught in a similar position I really am fairly worried about our potential role in all this and at the end of the day all I want is to do right by people.

 

[Bromley boy]

Publicly humiliating a fare paying disabled passenger over the PA? Threatening police attendance and ejection?

Trust me, if I was spoken to in the way they were speaking to that guard I’d have had them slung off, declared myself unfit to continue, train cancelled, everyone else also booted off.

I’d love to see a work scenario of yours posted over the internet to be picked apart and judged.

 

[bnm]

Interesting to note she was mobile enough to get to BBC radio studios for an interview.

Really?

There's this wonderful invention out there. It's called the telephone. Rather than jump to conclusions to back up a narrative you'd wish were true why not listen to her appearance on The Jeremy Vine Show first. Oh, and perhaps look at her social media posts.

From those you would learn two things. First, it's quite clear that she talked to Jeremy Vine by phone. Second, her tweets for the past two days have been from The Netherlands.

Finally, its unlikely the BBC paid her an appearance fee for a 5 minute telephone conversation.