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

[bradders1983]

In practice it did mean the mother could not occupy a normal seat with the baby.

Should she not have travelled?

This kind of situation, particularly if the train was busy, requires "give and take", not shouting about legal definitions and rights.

So they should have booted Ms David off the busy train then, yes? I dont see any other reasonable outcome other than booting the woman with the baby off for her to get the next train, the difference being that wouldnt have DDA implications (see the First West Yorkshire case) so would have been the lesser of two evils.

 

[PHILIPE]

In which case maybe the Guard should have gone down the train with her and found her another space, unless all the disabled space on a reasonably long train were filled at 11am on a Sunday morning.

The transport companies arent going to win with this. There was that guy who successfully sued First West Yorkshire when they said he couldnt get on a bus because people with prams were taking up the space designed for wheelchairs.

I think that would have been impossible, especially in view of the large number of cancellations on Sunday, as the train would have been so crowded with no room even to swing a cat let alone walk through with a wheel chair.

 

[Wolfie]

In practice it did mean the mother could not occupy a normal seat with the baby.

Should she not have travelled?

This kind of situation, particularly if the train was busy, requires "give and take", not shouting about legal definitions and rights. If I'm reading it right, the lady in the scooter could walk a short distance, so if I was her I would have transferred to a seat (the guard could have required the giving up of a nearby seat for her) to accommodate someone else who was not able to do so.

I agree with you to some extent (assuming that she is actually able to sit in a standard rail seat which isn't a given)... Unless some thus far revealed major fact exists (and I am damn sure that GWR would have mentioned it if there was such a thing) THERE IS NO DEFENCE

 

[Bletchleyite]

So they should have booted Ms David off the busy train then, yes? I dont see any other reasonable outcome other than booting the woman with the baby off, the difference being that wouldnt have DDA implications so would have been the lesser of two evils.

If you read the leaflet about mobility scooters (as distinct from wheelchairs and electric wheelchairs which serve a very different purpose) on GWR, they are only permitted if they can be folded and placed on the luggage rack. It may therefore have been an option to do exactly that with the guard's assistance.

 

[DarloRich]

Thank goodness GWR will hold an inquiry and get all sides of the story rather than the forum judge, jury and executioner.

indeed

NO! A short-term arm injury in no way, shape or form meets the legal definition of a disability

It depends on the definition of "short term". If i recall correctly the Equality Act defines a disability as something that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.

 

[northwichcat]

The mother who couldn't hold the baby due to an injury is also arguably disabled

was not the mother with the baby herself disabled?

As stated elsewhere in ghe thread. .... “ arm injury so could not hold the baby.”

You're disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a 'substantial' and 'long-term' negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.

https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

So being unable to hold a baby due to a temporary injury would certainly not make the woman disabled.

 

[Scotrail84]

https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010

So being unable to hold a baby due to a temporary injury would certainly not make the woman disabled.

No but it does mean her mobility is somewhat impaired doesn't it?

 

[northwichcat]

If you read the leaflet about mobility scooters (as distinct from wheelchairs and electric wheelchairs which serve a very different purpose) on GWR, they are only permitted if they can be folded and placed on the luggage rack. It may therefore have been an option to do exactly that with the guard's assistance.

That might be where a problem lies. I've seen guards post on here that they would never help a parent fold up a buggy or pram to put it in to the luggage space, not because they don't want to be helpful but because they don't want to be held responsible should the parent claim the buggy or pram has been damaged. Presumably the same reasoning would be used for a much more expensive mobility scooter.

 

[Wolfie]

It depends on the definition of "short term". If i recall correctly the Equality Act defines a disability as something that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.

You are correct.

 

[IanD]

There is a need for balance rather than villification as you tend to get on these threads.

We only know one side of the story - hers. We do not know what else was said or done. Only those with access to the CCTV will be able to see that (though not hear it, admittedly).

The footage from her mobile phone is quite clear with pictures and words.

 

[northwichcat]

No but it does mean her mobility is somewhat impaired doesn't it?

Question is then should she have been travelling with her baby unless she could either:
a) Be guaranteed that she could sit down i.e. by getting a seat reservation (so the baby could sit on her knee)
b) Have a friend, relative or partner with her.

 

[Mag_seven]

The footage from her mobile phone is quite clear with pictures and words.

From the point that the footage started - we do not know what happened or what was said before that point which is what the GWR inquiry will ascertain.

 

[Wolfie]

What we do know is that GWR's image has taken a serious trashing across media and social media.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Was Ms Davis in her scooter or transferred to a chair.

I was wondering the same... the article quoted doesn't make it clear..
if she was seated in her scooter then the guard was bang out of order... however if she had transferred to a seat and was just storing her scooter in the disabled bay then she is one of the minority of disabled people who go round with a sense of entitlement giving others a bad name...and her intransigence will one day come round and bite her on her bum

 

[Scotrail84]

Less than zero. For the reported announcement alone the guard is not fit to be in any customer facing role.

So is it true or not? Or are you just assuming its true because its reported on the internet.

(1) What gives you the right to sit behind your keyboard being a hard man deciding the fate of someone who you don't even know and very likely have never met, and (2) Base these decisions on one side of a story. Get all the facts first before tying the noose. Innocent until proven guilt and all that and a one sided report on the BBC website does not prove ones guilt.

 

[bnm]

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.

 

[Wolfie]

I was wondering the same... the article quoted doesn't make it clear..
if she was seated in her scooter then the guard was bang out of order... however if she had transferred to a seat and was just storing her scooter in the disabled bay then she is one of the minority of disabled people who go round with a sense of entitlement giving others a bad name...and her intransigence will one day come round and bite her on her bum

One of the photos, presumably from her video, in the BBC article clearly shows her seated in her scooter...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The footage from her mobile phone is quite clear with pictures and words.

I haven't seen that, only a video in which she talks to the camera afterwards. Do you have a link to a video of the actual incident?

 

[Bromley boy]

No if, no buts, and I really don't give two hoots it it upsets some - that guard should be fired!

Sorry but is puerile, reactionary nonsense. You weren’t there and you don’t know what happened. So maybe reserve judgement and let the investigation take its course?

 

[bnm]

a one sided report on the BBC website does not prove ones guilt.

That's the only report you've bothered to read is it? There are other reports in the news media as well as a selection of videos on YouTube that provide compelling evidence of the despicable treatment of Tanyalee Davies at the hands of the GWR TM.

I've stated my opinion on the TMs continued employ. But that doesn't mean due process shouldn't be followed. What I would do and what GWR do may very well be different.

 

[Swanny200]

My question is how did she get on board the train without assistance by a ramp, so surely a member of GWR staff or the guard would have known she was already on the train and breaking their rules by being in a scooter (which is classed as a motorised vehicle and not a wheelchair).

Not saying that if the story is true in it's entirety and verified the guard shouldn't be hauled over the coals for his announcement for a start!

 

[IanXC]

Don't think I've ever heard of an incident where a staff member instructed a person with a mobility impairment to move from a wheelchair area for the benefit of a passenger with a pushchair. Truly bizarre if not shocking, I won't comment on things such as disciplinary action as it's not really appropriate at this stage.

Quite. I think it would be very wise for all posters to think carefully when posting, especially considering there will be an ongoing investigation, with the potential for a legal case in this instance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FWIW I am not railway staff either, nor have I ever been, nor do I intend on being at the present time. People will no doubt note that I can sometimes be very critical of staff where appropriate.

One thing the article posted above mentions is that her companion, who if I read things correctly is able-bodied, refused to give up his seat for the mother with the baby. If I've read that right, no doubt that inflamed the situation further.

 

[IanD]

Was Ms Davis in her scooter or transferred to a chair.
The mother who couldn't hold the baby due to an injury is also arguably disabled, and also becomes a safety issue.

Not disabled, merely temporarily incapacitated.

That might be where a problem lies. I've seen guards post on here that they would never help a parent fold up a buggy or pram to put it in to the luggage space, not because they don't want to be unhelpful but because they don't want to be held responsible should the parent claim the buggy or pram has been damaged. Presumably the same reasoning would be used for a much more expensive mobility scooter.

The guard can be seen lifting the pram over Tanyalee so I can't see that he would have issue with that. He also offered to move the scooter at each station but the offer was refused because he didn't know how to operate it so may damage it.

 

[SWT_USER]

In which case maybe the Guard should have gone down the train with her and found her another space, unless all the disabled space on a reasonably long train were filled at 11am on a Sunday morning.

The transport companies arent going to win with this. There was that guy who successfully sued First West Yorkshire when they said he couldnt get on a bus because people with prams were taking up the space designed for wheelchairs.

Given how few services GWR have bothered to run on Sundays over the past year or so this wouldn't be surprising.

 

[IanD]

One thing the article posted above mentions is that her companion, who if I read things correctly is able-bodied, refused to give up his seat for the mother with the baby. If I've read that right, no doubt that inflamed the situation further.

That may be true but in her video on you tube I believe she says he offered to give up his seat. Who to believe?

 

[Scotrail84]

That's the only report you've bothered to read is it? There are other reports in the news media as well as a selection of videos on YouTube that provide compelling evidence of the despicable treatment of Tanyalee Davies at the hands of the GWR TM.

I've stated my opinion on the TMs continued employ. But that doesn't mean due process shouldn't be followed. What I would do and what GWR do may very well be different.

Thats was the only one I seen on the thread.

I'm sure they are different but No matter what GWR find in their investigation there are procedures follow for disciplinary action and this includes the union represetaion should staff member wish union involvement.

 

[northwichcat]

Just looking at the video one thing is clear it's an extra small mobility scooter due to her small size.

 

[adrock1976]

One thing that must not be forgotten is that Ms Davies did not choose to become long term disabled.

As a side note and according to the statistics that can be found from various disabled organisations websites, since the General Election of 2010 there has been an increase in hate crime against disabled people. A well known example being a senior citizen around the Newcastle area or thereabouts was beaten up and mugged by a gang, however, a young lady launched an online campaign to raise funds for the person that got mugged.

Regarding the guard, I would recommend having training in the Equalities Act once it has been ascertained what happened in relation to that incident.

 

[nottsnurse]

...was not the mother with the baby herself disabled?

As stated elsewhere in ghe thread. .... “ arm injury so could not hold the baby.”

Unlikely, at least not in the eyes of the Equality Act 2010.

Definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010
You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.

What ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ mean

• ‘substantial’ is more than minor or trivial, eg it takes much longer than it usually would to complete a daily task like getting dressed
  
  
• ‘long-term’ means 12 months or more, eg a breathing condition that develops as a result of a lung infection
  

https://www.gov.uk/definition-of-disability-under-equality-act-2010