Disabled child refused travel with FGW

[D1009]

Pewsey is on a DOO route so no guard.

Totally incorrect, Pewsey is only served by HSTs on the West of England main line.

 

[bnm]

Pewsey is on a DOO route so no guard.

Wrong.

Does anyone know for certain what sort of motorised wheelchair the lad was in because that will answer all the questions, or just carry on argueing amonst yourselves!

It was a wheelchair that had been carried on the railways numerous times before without problem. That's what the article said, but then according to Ferret, I'm lacking in intelligence and common sense for even believing what's written. He brings up the saga of Qamar Khaliq and those that fell for his story as an example of past experience. Difference there is Mr Khaliq was confrontational, he refused to put his daughter down while the chair was loaded and wouldn't accept that the ramp in use could not be deployed at his destination. He first went online to the Digital Spy Forum and then posted a video on youtube. Only then did the media pick up the story. So a poor example to highlight any supposed lack of intelligence or common sense on my part. Such a comment is close to a personal attack, but I'll let it slide.

Never mind, FGW are also lacking in intelligence and common sense because they must also believe what happened with the young lad at Pewsey. I'm not aware that FGW give out free trips and a cab visit to people who make baseless complaints.

As for all those trying to deflect criticism of your colleagues (admirable, but misguided) by questioning whether the wheelchair was suitable to be carried; why did the staff at Pewsey only say that 24 hours notice must be given. If the wheelchair was too large or was in fact a scooter, don't you think they'd have said so? Those are reasons for non-carriage, an obligation to give notice isn't.

Then there's the free trip FGW are offering. Would they be offering a free trip to someone whose wheelchair cannot legally be carried?

 

[jon0844]

It does seem unlikely you'd ask someone to book in advance to carry something that wouldn't be allowed on. In fact, it would be even worse treatment!

Therefore I'd be inclined to believe the story was as told.

 

[Flamingo]

Just to repeat my previous post, (and to try and get some perspective into a thread where lots of people seem to be lacking it...)

- This obviously wasn't FGW company policy, somebody made a mistake - human error.

- FGW has apologised to the family concerned for the error, and made recompense - which I am confident they would have done even if the media had NOT become involved.

- The staff involved will certainly have had their error pointed out to them and will have received retraining by now.

- I confidently expect that on our next training day (of which we have three or four a year), the topics covered will include wheelchair ramps etc.

Just to add, I still remember my "disability" training from my FGW induction as being the most impressive on the subject I have ever received.

 

[jon0844]

A brilliant summary that hopefully puts this story to bed!

 

[Milky Bar Kid]

If the electric chair or scooter has stability aids at the rear then it will be conveyed by fgw.

 

[Flamingo]

If the electric chair or scooter has stability aids at the rear then it will be conveyed by fgw.

Will it? I was under the impression we only carried scooters that could be folded, or where a pass had been issued http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/...travel/FGW-Scooter-Card-Application-Form.ashx.

 

[bnm]

If the electric chair or scooter has stability aids at the rear then it will be conveyed by fgw.

Can we please put all this scooter nonsense to bed. It is totally irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

Electric wheelchairs merely have to conform to dimension and weight limits.

 

[Ferret]

Never mind, FGW are also lacking in intelligence and common sense because they must also believe what happened with the young lad at Pewsey. I'm not aware that FGW give out free trips and a cab visit to people who make baseless complaints.

As for all those trying to deflect criticism of your colleagues (admirable, but misguided) by questioning whether the wheelchair was suitable to be carried; why did the staff at Pewsey only say that 24 hours notice must be given. If the wheelchair was too large or was in fact a scooter, don't you think they'd have said so? Those are reasons for non-carriage, an obligation to give notice isn't.

There you go again - claiming you know for sure the staff were in the wrong. Incredible.

FGW have acted as they have because it is good PR - and the lad should have been able to travel. What the reasons were that he couldn't we don't know for sure - FGW aren't about to tell us (!), but as every other staff member on here has stated, if an unbooked wheelchair turns up - you put the owner of it on the train, regardless of the polite request to book in advance! So, why didn't they? Could've been any number of reasons, but I bet it wasn't that 'they couldn't be bothered', whatever you'd like to believe.

bnm - you believe what you want to believe, whatever makes you happy. If you want to nail the staff despite not actually having the evidence, you do so. But please don't complain when you get criticised for doing so - that tends to be the result of making an unreasonable post. Last time I looked, this is not a forum where rail staff are crucified without proper justification. If you thought that it is, then I'm afraid it is you who is misguided and wrong. I trust this makes things clear for you.

 

[bnm]

There you go again - claiming you know for sure the staff were in the wrong. Incredible.

FGW have acted as they have because it is good PR - and the lad should have been able to travel. What the reasons were that he couldn't we don't know for sure - FGW aren't about to tell us (!), but as every other staff member on here has stated, if an unbooked wheelchair turns up - you put the owner of it on the train, regardless of the polite request to book in advance! So, why didn't they? Could've been any number of reasons, but I bet it wasn't that 'they couldn't be bothered', whatever you'd like to believe.

bnm - you believe what you want to believe, whatever makes you happy. If you want to nail the staff despite not actually having the evidence, you do so. But please don't complain when you get criticised for doing so - that tends to be the result of making an unreasonable post. Last time I looked, this is not a forum where rail staff are crucified without proper justification. If you thought that it is, then I'm afraid it is you who is misguided and wrong. I trust this makes things clear for you.

As mud.

Nowhere did I say I believed 'they couldn't be bothered'. Nowhere have I said I wish to nail the staff. Nowhere have I wished the staff be 'crucified.' I've stated my reasons for believing the article and stand by them. I've managed to do so without resorting to hyperbole as well.

I'm free to believe the facts as reported in the media. IN THIS CASE. It doesn't mean I'm lacking in intelligence, as you so bluntly put it, and I believe EVERYTHING I read. Incidentally, to pick up on your point about things being written to sell papers; this article was printed on an inside page of the Wiltshire Times with no screaming headline or editorial comment. I found the article online as I regularly trawl local press for rail related news items (the good, the bad, the weird, the sad).

I've worked for First Great Western in the past and saw many incidences of good customer service and one or two incidences of bad customer service and of unintentional discrimination dealing with the less able. I know many serving frontline staff as well as one or two behind the scenes in Customer Service. I'm not out to crucify or nail any of them.

I have no problem with being criticised for taking the point of view that on the balance of probabilities the article as written is factually correct. I'm less keen however to be seen as on a mission to 'nail' or 'crucify' the staff involved. I'm also less than happy when the criticism of my point of view calls into question my supposed lack of intelligence or common sense.

Finally, I fully agree with flamingo's assessment of the situation.