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

[Bletchleyite]

Tell that to the RSSB, ORR and DfT.

From an RSSB report in December 2017:

Interesting, as GWR's policy does not follow that.

 

[nottsnurse]

Because that doesn't get you on the news.

Or alternatively,

"Because a woman with a pram isn't considered disabled, no matter what injury she may or may not have, and that Tanyalee Davis should never have been moved out of the disabled space."

 

[LAX54]

Log seems to indicate there is more to this than meets the eye, but, what that is, only a few know I would have thought

 

[Bromley boy]

It appears from one of the news articles he was busy justifying why he, as an able bodied person, did not have to give up *his* seat for the mother with the baby. I think anyone able bodied, including a wheelchair user's companion, should give up their seat for someone with an injury, even a temporary one. That's just being a nice person.

Indeed, which says it all about him.

It sounds like the whole thing was a complete and utter failure of the "attitude test". Politeness goes a long, long way.

It’s a storm in a teacup and a complete non issue.

She deliberately chose to be awkward and obstructive in order to play the victim and seek attention, and has clearly succeeded in doing so.

I’m not sure what else the guard could have done in the circumstances

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, which says it all about him.

Quite. He came across as the kind of self-entitled "I know my rights" American who you read lots about on the likes of Flyertalk - the kind who calls his lawyer[1] at the slightest hint of someone saying something he doesn't like. Funnily enough, that kind of attitude seems far less common in Europe than over t'other side of the pond.

[1] That those people (generically) have enough contact with a member of the legal profession to refer to "my lawyer" says a lot about their attitude. The only time I've had contact with any member of the legal profession has been conveyancing; I've generally found I can solve my own problems by talking reasonably to other people about them.

 

[nottsnurse]

She might not have to, but in light of circumstances perhaps it might be reasonable of her to concede to do so anyway following what appears to have been an extremely polite request by the guard on a very busy train?

Was it extremely polite?

Comments about "failing the attitude test" are baffling. Tanyalee did nothing wrong. She was in a disabled space and is a disabled individual. New mum, regardless of injury, is not legally considerd 'disabled' with regards to the Equality Act 2010 and it's implementation by the railways.

The Train Manager screwed up and doubled down on his mistake by attempting to shift blame for his incompetence onto a disabled passenger.

 

[Darandio]

The guard was trying to compromise, their response was simply to bang on about legality and push the camera further in the guards face, the 'partner' was particulary unhelpful to the situation. What the guard then did was indefensible. Both sides didn't come out too favourably.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Sorry, I thought I'd inserted the link earlier. Not sure if anyone has since.

now I've seen the video I'm totally confused... it appears the pram was already on board when Tanyalee boarded... so why on earth was she boarded onto a coach where the space was already occupied? why didn't the guard offer to collapse down the pushchair for the lady? come to think of it, why didn't Tanyalee's companion offer to collapse it {and to put it up again once there was no conflict of interest ie one or other got off} instead of filming and inflaming the situation? There appears to be wrong on ALL sides here... and incompetence from GWR staff from start to finish... but defo just for the comment made on the tannoy the guard should be sacked.. the announcement should have been "we are having to stop for an operational problem, we will try and resolve it as soon as possible and apologise for the delay" end of! he should NEVER have drawn attention to the passengers involved!

 

[Bletchleyite]

the announcement should have been "we are having to stop for an operational problem, we will try and resolve it as soon as possible and apologise for the delay" end of! he should NEVER have drawn attention to the passengers involved!

I absolutely agree with this. The announcement was unprofessional and was basically a loss of his temper, and I'm sure he will be disciplined for that.

The only case I would see that kind of thing as being acceptable would be if the guard was being assaulted or threatened and had to call on immediate passenger assistance to ensure his safety.

 

[Deafdoggie]

And how many people on here have complained about not being given reasons, just "operational incident"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The guard was trying to compromise, their response was simply to bang on about legality and push the camera further in the guards face, the 'partner' was particulary unhelpful to the situation. What the guard then did was indefensible. Both sides didn't come out too favourably.

I think that is a fair analysis.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And how many people on here have complained about not being given reasons, just "operational incident"?

I would be happy with "passenger incident", no need to identify the passenger. I have heard this used a few times, e.g. when someone has been caught nicking from the buffet.

 

[Bromley boy]

Was it extremely polite?

Far, far more polite than I would have been in the circumstances. It’s lucky I’m not customer facing, eh?

The Train Manager screwed up and doubled down on his mistake by attempting to shift blame for his incompetence onto a disabled passenger.

I’d love to see how you’d have handled that situation if you’d been the guard in question, whose probably now in fear of his job.

 

[nottsnurse]

I’m not sure what else the guard could have done in the circumstances,

He could have started with not considering moving a disabled passenger from a disabled space for a non-disabled passenger and worked from that point.

Perhaps he should of stopped the service at the next station, called the police to assist and make comments over the PA about the new mum being the cause of the delay. At the least he'd of had legislation on his side.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps he should of stopped the service at the next station, called the police to assist and make comments over the PA about the new mum being the cause of the delay. At the least he'd of had legislation on his side.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the mother was an issue.

What he should have done was made a generic announcement about "passenger issues" or somesuch. Not identified anyone specifically.

 

[Bromley boy]

He could have started with not considering moving a disabled passenger from a disabled space for a non-disabled passenger and worked from that point.

Perhaps he should of stopped the service at the next station, called the police to assist and make comments over the PA about the new mum being the cause of the delay. At the least he'd of had legislation on his side.

And then no doubt a video would be posted to YouTube and you would be on here pontificating about the disgusting actions of the awful guard who turned away an injured woman, babe in arms, and how he should be sacked immediately.

Rock and a hard place.

 

[stut]

If (and I'm not in a position to know the full story) the events are as recounted, publicly humiliating someone in that situation would almost certainly count as gross misconduct in my job.

That's not making a mistake at work, that's failing as a human being.

 

[Bromley boy]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the mother was an issue.

What he should have done was made a generic announcement about "passenger issues" or somesuch. Not identified anyone specifically.

The announcement was ill advised, I agree.

But tempers rise when, despite your best efforts, you have some idiot pointing a camera in your face threatening to call his lawyer.

 

[Darandio]

Perhaps he should of stopped the service at the next station, called the police to assist and make comments over the PA about the new mum being the cause of the delay. At the least he'd of had legislation on his side.

Have I missed the evidence showing the mother causing an issue?

 

[nottsnurse]

I’d love to see how you’d have handled that situation if you’d been the guard in question, whose probably now in fear of his job.

Having previous worked in A&E (where I've dealt with similar and worse problems with patients/relatives/staff etc over the years) and having previous to that spent 12 years in the military in various 'interesting' locations around the world, I doubt I'd struggle with a 'rigours' of a situation such as this.

Starting with "don't kick a disabled person out a disabled area for a non-disabled person" should be a good place to start though.

 

[bnm]

Interesting, as GWR's policy does not follow that.

I believe that policy is now out of step with how the industry is interpreting the legislation. If anything comes out of this incident it should be a change to TOC mobility scooter policies. I think it is discriminatory for a disabled user of a mobility scooter to have to carry a permit. If their scooter matches, or is less than, the maximum wheelchair dimensions then that should be sufficient to allow it and its occupant to board. Said occupant can then remain seated in it should they so wish. Said occupant should be allowed to have their travelling companion/helper stay with them.

Tanyalee Davis was allowed to board (with ramp provided at Plymouth), and to occupy the disabled space, with her travelling companion sat with her. That should have been the end of the matter.

 

[farleigh]

Bromley Boy is one of the few talking in a reasonable way. If the guard made a mistake and it was a first, let him learn from it. In the meantime, who is anybody on here to say he should be sacked? I hope he is treated fairly and compassionately and also that amends can be made with Ms Davis. Nothing is unmendable.

 

[bnm]

The announcement was ill advised, I agree.

But tempers rise when, despite your best efforts, you have some idiot pointing a camera in your face threatening to call his lawyer.

I heard mention from the camera holder that what the TM was doing was against the law and it will be recorded/reported. I'm not certain from listening to the video which of those two words was used. Both were done though. Tanyalee's companion was recording and the incident has been reported on. I didn't hear a threat to call a lawyer.

That said, how did it get to that point? It got there because of an unreasonable and illegal insistence that a disabled person move from a designated disabled space. I'd certainly start gathering video evidence and saying I was going to report the matter if I'd been in that position.

 

[farleigh]

I detect some tension here.

I have never dealt with angry drugged violent injured drunk people dying in front of me with relatives shooting at me, but I think the guard deserves a fair hearing.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I can’t hear the video very well. From what I can hear the guard is apologising and the companion to the lady in a wheelchair seems only interested in making a complaint and not interested at all in helping his companion. I couldn’t hear any train announcement, so can’t comment on that. Nor did I see the incident, only the lady in the scooter (and her companion) talking about it afterwards. So it seems very hard to comment on one way or the other.
But working in a customer-facing role, and having to deal with this kind of thing, you try to please everyone. If this was a solution to them both staying on the train, it sounds a good call. Unfortunately one side will always feel hard done to. Disabled people get equal rights, not greater rights. If abler-bodied people can be in a vestibule, why not a disabled person?

 

[northwichcat]

Bromley Boy is one of the few talking in a reasonable way. If the guard made a mistake and it was a first, let him learn from it. In the meantime, who is anybody on here to say he should be sacked? I hope he is treated fairly and compassionately and also that amends can be made with Ms Davis. Nothing is unmendable.

If a guard handed £8 change to a passenger instead of £5 I don't expect the guard to be treated in the same way as one who is stealing money collected via revenue duties. That's the difference between a mistake and knowingly breaking the law even though in both cases the guard hands less money then they should to their employer.

It should be remembered some guards on here constantly remind us that their role has high responsibility and question how legal obligations regarding disabled passengers will be met if trains are DOO. This was an instance where a guard was put in a position of responsibility with a disabled passenger and it looks like it went wrong. Was the guard properly trained? Did the guard ignore things they had been told in training? Is the TOC training policy wrong? Only by answering those questions can the TOC decide what action should be taken against the guard.

 

[bnm]

I can’t hear the video very well. From what I can hear the guard is apologising and the companion to the lady in a wheelchair seems only interested in making a complaint and not interested at all in helping his companion. I couldn’t hear any train announcement, so can’t comment on that. Nor did I see the incident, only the lady in the scooter (and her companion) talking about it afterwards. So it seems very hard to comment on one way or the other.
But working in a customer-facing role, and having to deal with this kind of thing, you try to please everyone. If this was a solution to them both staying on the train, it sounds a good call. Unfortunately one side will always feel hard done to. Disabled people get equal rights, not greater rights. If abler-bodied people can be in a vestibule, why not a disabled person?

Tanyalee Davies should not have been moved. She was occupying a space designated for someone with disabilities.

I can't believe you are suggesting it's acceptable to move her out of that designated space into a vestibule.

What the TM insisted on doing was not a 'solution'. It wasn't pragmatic. It wasn't the best thing to do all round. It was illegal.

The companion was helping Tanyalee. He was gathering evidence of a clear breach of the Equality Act.

 

[northwichcat]

I can’t hear the video very well. From what I can hear the guard is apologising and the companion to the lady in a wheelchair seems only interested in making a complaint and not interested at all in helping his companion. I couldn’t hear any train announcement, so can’t comment on that.

As with any mobile phone footage it will only commence after someone feels that they haven't been treated in the way they should be. It could be the guard made an announcement over the PA after seeing a problem on CCTV instead of walking down the train to talk to the passengers, if he did that was a huge mistake even if the claim he referred to the woman causing problems and threatened to delay the train until it was sorted, was false.

 

[Bromley boy]

question how legal obligations regarding disabled passengers will be met if trains are DOO.

I can tell you that for nothing.

If there’s noone to help them board they simply get left behind on the platform.

It happens regularly on my patch.

 

[Jonfun]

Making such an announcement is quite clearly unprofessional.
But if GWR's policy says scooters must be folded and placed in the luggage space, then that must be followed. The incident would not have happened at all if whichever staff member put the passenger in a mobility scooter in the wrong place had not done so in the first place.
The Guard always had the option of refusing to take the train rather than causing a hoo-ha.