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

[DarloRich]

I am glad that this thread is a little more measured now. Unbelievable that yesterday people were calling for the guard to be sacked when they didn't know most of the facts. These people are hopefully now reflecting on those posts.

I notice they haven't been back................

 

[Bantamzen]

Unless the person conducting the disciplinary hearing is in a sealed room, it is unavoidable they will hear/see/read comments. Are we to deny them internet, TV, newspapers and radio too? If they aren't going to base their views in facts, then it doesn't matter what we write anyway.

I'm sorry, you maybe missed the bit where I said I've seen similar things happen in disputes? Some contributors are just trying to work out what happened and discuss that which is fair enough, but as you can clearly see some are making speculation without any foundation or knowledge of the events, and these things can find their way into decision making processes. No we can't deny them access to anything, but when a thread starts to make completely the kinds of speculation that is starting to happen here, those making it either need to be asked to stop, and if they won't the thread stopped.

I am not getting into a human rights or freedom of speech debate, I know all too well that some people think they are entitled to say what they like regardless of its impact. But as I said, if nothing else the guard himself might be reading this. Put yourself in his shoes for a minute, would you be happy for people to speculate on why you did what you did in a public forum? Would freedom of speech be your number one priority then? Don't just hit the reply button, have a think about that for a moment or two.

 

[bnm]

If anything good is to come out of it it will hopefully that the "mobility scooter" fiasco that exists will be clearly formalised.

The issue has been formalised. The RSSB reported on mobility scooter access to trains in December 2017. They sought clarification on the law from the Office of Rail & Road and the Department for Transport. Those bodies said:

The Department for Transport (DfT) and Office of Rail and Road (ORR) have indicated that there is no clear basis for differentiating between wheelchair and mobility scooter devices, provided they meet the ‘reference wheelchair’ specification (Length: 1200mm, Width: 700mm, Height: 1350mm, Laden weight: 300kg, and have similar manoeuvrability characteristics.

Full document attached.

And before someone points out that the document mentions that some TOCs have a mobility scooter permit scheme, we don't know whether or not Tanyalee Davis had a GWR permit. There is no legal requirement to have a permit. Permit or not, Tanyalee Davis was boarded and settled into the unreserved space for disabled travellers at Plymouth without issue. She should have been able to complete her journey without being moved. Only later in the journey did her occupation of that area with her mobility aid become an issue. She did not make it an issue. She had the absolute right to remain in that area with her mobility aid. A mother and baby and the Train Manager made it an issue and it is they, and they only, who are responsible for the escalation.

And may I remind all those still attempting to find fault with Tanyalee Davies. GWR have categorically said this should not have happened. They have categorically said disabled spaces are not for buggies.

 

[RussellFM]

IPut yourself in his shoes for a minute, would you be happy for people to speculate on why you did what you did in a public forum?.

If given the opportunity to respond especially after reading this thread (and probably consulting a lawyer), any response he offered would be seen as disingenuous.

 

[matt_world2004]

If there is any inquiry into this incident. I hope all factors are examined including

1.)What impact did GwRs own policy have in causing this incident (policy)
2.) What impact did the communication of this policy have in causing the incident.(Training)
3.)and weather the guards conduct caused the incident or severely aggrevated the incident (discipline)

 

[Gareth Marston]

Okay.
From a disabled persons point of view.
Has anyone thought it may not actually be practical for her to sit in the scooter for a long period of time? Given the likely size and weight of the scooter and being on a moving train- it might have actually not been safe for her to sit in it. Also being disabled myself- I can only tolerate being in my wheelchair for short spaces of time as it is not comfortable however I need it to help me get around so for short spaces of time I can tolerate it but after a while it becomes painful. Has anyone thought this might perhaps be the case here?
Having been in the situation in a train where I have been told to fold my own wheelchair and store it (allegedly this is company policy and when I challenged it was told that the Passenger Assist staff should have done it for me but this was in between stations!) Given the nature of Tanyalee’s Disability and the fact her partner was injured and unable to do it himself meant that folding it just wasn’t possible so what was she supposed to do?
Sadly I have seen too much of the militant buggy brigade who think their giant baby vehicles mean that they have more rights than anyone else. I also understand that it’s not ideal for a new mum to be standing on a moving train with a tiny baby so she should not have been asked to stand and should have been found a seat.
As for her pram, it should have been folded and stored.
I am now beyond being shocked at how disabled people are treated on trains (I’ve had enough awful treatment myself) so im frankly not surprised at what the guard did. Doesn’t make it right of course and rightly some disabled people are fed up of being made to feel like second class citizens when travelling.
The Mumsnet brigade would be creating utter riots had the mum been called out like for wanting to use the disabled bay (oh yes I’ve had that too, booked the disabled bay for my wheelchair, got on the train and there’s a woman with shed loads of kids and a buggy in my space- and I’m the selfish one as I politely asked her to allow me in) so why on earth does this guard think it’s okay to demonise a disabled person?! Is he on some sort of power trip that he’s picking on someone he sees as an easy option?!
Kids are a lifestyle choice. No disabilities are lifestyle choices- my god I would absolutely love to have my Mobility back but it ain’t happening! This government seems dead set on making life as hard as possible for those with disabilities and everywhere we turn there’s some kind of obstacle.
I’m sorry but I’m with Tanyalee on this one. Emotive subject yes and I apologise for my outburst but this is happening too much and it’s always us disabled who get the blame whether we are at fault or not!

She was not in her Mobility Scooter she was or her companion was sitting in someone elses reserved seat.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I'm sorry, you maybe missed the bit where I said I've seen similar things happen in disputes? Some contributors are just trying to work out what happened and discuss that which is fair enough, but as you can clearly see some are making speculation without any foundation or knowledge of the events, and these things can find their way into decision making processes. No we can't deny them access to anything, but when a thread starts to make completely the kinds of speculation that is starting to happen here, those making it either need to be asked to stop, and if they won't the thread stopped.

I am not getting into a human rights or freedom of speech debate, I know all too well that some people think they are entitled to say what they like regardless of its impact. But as I said, if nothing else the guard himself might be reading this. Put yourself in his shoes for a minute, would you be happy for people to speculate on why you did what you did in a public forum? Would freedom of speech be your number one priority then? Don't just hit the reply button, have a think about that for a moment or two.

If the person conducting the hearing has gone out of their way to find then read this thread, they are not fit to be leading the hearing. It would get thrown out anyway at a tribunal if the action was based on hearsay in a public forum. If it has happened before and no one took action about it, bigger fools them.

 

[Bantamzen]

If the person conducting the hearing has gone out of their way to find then read this thread, they are not fit to be leading the hearing. It would get thrown out anyway at a tribunal if the action was based on hearsay in a public forum. If it has happened before and no one took action about it, bigger fools them.

Well it has and it will again, that is what I am saying. Sometimes people are way too quick and happy to jump onto a subject like this and make wild speculation which has effects beyond their intent. I stand by my belief that this thread needs slowing or stopping until at least some actual facts (which are in very short attendance for such a long thread on such an important issue), not just campfire speculation are available and/or a decision on the guy's future is reached. By the reaction of some you'd think I was calling for martial law & shootings at dawn...

Anyway that's my opinion, I don't intent to argue the toss about it so we might as well agree to disagree on it.

 

[bnm]

She was not in her Mobility Scooter she was or her companion was sitting in someone elses reserved seat.

That's interesting. Where is it reported that Tanyalee Davies and Kevin Bolden were occupying reserved seats?

The disabled space was, according to reports and Tanyalee, not reserved prior to departure from Plymouth. You can't reserve the space after the train has departed its origin station.

 

[BMoiz]

This thread is a mess

1) Mobility scooter and wheelchair are interchangeable terms. The Rail Safety and Standards Board have said that mobility scooters count as wheelchairs where they are of comparable size and are thus protected
2) Mobility scooters do not easily fold down to the same size as a standard piece of luggage. Often just the back wheels and motor detach and the handles fold down. They are comparable to several pieces of luggage and cannot be easily stored on a train. The easiest way of storing them for the convenience of all is to leave them in the disabled area
3) Prams, buggies, etc are designed to fold down easily. The baby had already been removed from it, there was no requirement for it to remain up
4) Disabled areas are for disabled people and are not for the convenience of anyone else who feels they have the right to use it. A disabled person who requires it should always, in all circumstances, take priority over able-bodied people. This should be a hard rule that is always followed. It is not for bikes, it is not for buggies, it is not for your large luggage. It is for a disabled person whether or not they are in their mobility aid. This is non-negotiable.
5) Blaming the treatment of this woman on her partner is an effort to distract from the fact that she was being discriminated against. Discrimination remains discrimination even if their travelling companion is acting unreasonably in your opinion. Shockingly, seeing someone you are travelling with being discriminate often makes you act in ways you normally would not

I note that a lot of effort has been expended from the very start of this thread trying to find reasons why the disabled woman should not have been on the train/should have moved for an able-bodied person/was the cause of the problem/acted unreasonably (as well as referring to her necessary mobility aid as "luggage"). The reasons why people are doing this can only be conjected, but it shows that in society in general as well as in this specific incident disabled people are always seen as a burden and are expected to acquiesce to the demands of able-bodied society. People engaging in this behaviour should be taking a long hard look at themselves and question why they instantly assumed the disabled woman to be in the wrong

(Also the fact that a disabled person spoke of their experiences on trains and this was completely ignored by people desperate to prove the disabled woman was the real problem. Shameful)

 

[mrcheek]

I note that a lot of effort has been expended from the very start of this thread trying to find reasons why the disabled woman should not have been on the train/should have moved for an able-bodied person/was the cause of the problem/acted unreasonably (as well as referring to her necessary mobility aid as "luggage"). The reasons why people are doing this can only be conjected, but it shows that in society in general as well as in this specific incident disabled people are always seen as a burden and are expected to acquiesce to the demands of able-bodied society. People engaging in this behaviour should be taking a long hard look at themselves and question why they instantly assumed the disabled woman to be in the wrong

actually, I think most people are seeking to find the truth. The media always takes one particular side in these instances. so we are seeking to find out the full story of what really happened
somebody who has spent years working as a train manager is not suddenly going to turn into a hater of the disabled one day. so we all knew there had to be far more to the story than was being reported. it has been established that the passenger was not in her scooter, and had moved to a seat. The issue was the her scooter was occupying a space. and yet people are still claiming otherwise.

Older forum users will remember the Manchester/Guide Bridge incident, again with a disabled user, and again, the media only told his side of the story. In that case, the passenger turned out to be something of a fantasist. But the true story was never reported by the media

 

[Gareth Marston]

That's interesting. Where is it reported that Tanyalee Davies and Kevin Bolden were occupying reserved seats?

The disabled space was, according to reports and Tanyalee, not reserved prior to departure from Plymouth. You can't reserve the space after the train has departed its origin station.

Up thread those that have watched the first video posted online have heard a dispute about a seat reservation between them and another passenger. Tanyalee left her mobility scooter in an unreserved disabled space unfolded, got out of it and sat in a ordinary next to her companion one of these seats appears to have been reserved by someone else.

 

[bramling]

This thread is a mess

1) Mobility scooter and wheelchair are interchangeable terms. The Rail Safety and Standards Board have said that mobility scooters count as wheelchairs where they are of comparable size and are thus protected
2) Mobility scooters do not easily fold down to the same size as a standard piece of luggage. Often just the back wheels and motor detach and the handles fold down. They are comparable to several pieces of luggage and cannot be easily stored on a train. The easiest way of storing them for the convenience of all is to leave them in the disabled area
3) Prams, buggies, etc are designed to fold down easily. The baby had already been removed from it, there was no requirement for it to remain up
4) Disabled areas are for disabled people and are not for the convenience of anyone else who feels they have the right to use it. A disabled person who requires it should always, in all circumstances, take priority over able-bodied people. This should be a hard rule that is always followed. It is not for bikes, it is not for buggies, it is not for your large luggage. It is for a disabled person whether or not they are in their mobility aid. This is non-negotiable.
5) Blaming the treatment of this woman on her partner is an effort to distract from the fact that she was being discriminated against. Discrimination remains discrimination even if their travelling companion is acting unreasonably in your opinion. Shockingly, seeing someone you are travelling with being discriminate often makes you act in ways you normally would not

I note that a lot of effort has been expended from the very start of this thread trying to find reasons why the disabled woman should not have been on the train/should have moved for an able-bodied person/was the cause of the problem/acted unreasonably (as well as referring to her necessary mobility aid as "luggage"). The reasons why people are doing this can only be conjected, but it shows that in society in general as well as in this specific incident disabled people are always seen as a burden and are expected to acquiesce to the demands of able-bodied society. People engaging in this behaviour should be taking a long hard look at themselves and question why they instantly assumed the disabled woman to be in the wrong

(Also the fact that a disabled person spoke of their experiences on trains and this was completely ignored by people desperate to prove the disabled woman was the real problem. Shameful)

The above is all well and good, and I don’t disagree with the basis of it. However the problem seems to be that in reality there were two or more grown adults with conflicting wants, or perhaps needs - in their eyes at least, and seemingly no one prepared to make any kind of concession. Otherwise I can’t see why the situation blew up.

We can debate to the end whether one or the other had more legal or moral right to the space, but it doesn’t help resolve the issue on the day. Perhaps every space should have a BTP officer permanently stationed guarding it?

These squabbles happen all the time when there is a finite resource which excess numbers of people want to use. I note the guard was making the point that seats were available elsewhere in the train.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's interesting. Where is it reported that Tanyalee Davies and Kevin Bolden were occupying reserved seats?

The disabled space was, according to reports and Tanyalee, not reserved prior to departure from Plymouth. You can't reserve the space after the train has departed its origin station.

In the video Tanyalee posted, she refers to a dispute about the seat either her or Kevin were sat in. She claims they were both unreserved, but apparently the guard disagreed and "took her (the mother's) side". Unfortunately it really isn't clear whether the seats were reserved or not, nor whether the mother had a reservation which was not displayed or perhaps removed.

 

[bnm]

Up thread those that have watched the first video posted online have heard a dispute about a seat reservation between them and another passenger. Tanyalee left her mobility scooter in an unreserved disabled space unfolded, got out of it and sat in a ordinary next to her companion one of these seats appears to have been reserved by someone else.

Tanyalee Davies, speaking just now on Radio 2 stated that the seat next to the disabled space was unreserved. As it should be if the disabled space is unreserved. This seat (seat 43 in a GWR Mk3 coach L), like the disabled space itself, can only be reserved through a station ticket office or Passenger Assistance by phone. It is not released for general reservation. Tanyalee's partner occupied this seat. GWR's seating plan shows this seat as 'wheelchair* companion'. Tanyalee also stated that this particular train had no Standard Class disabled spaces. Not uncommon with GWR at the moment to have HST sets in traffic without an accessible Coach C.

Tanyalee herself was sat immediately opposite her mobility aid, in an unreserved seat in a bay of four.



*As I've already mentioned and linked to. ORR and DfT regard mobility scooters that comply with the maximum wheelchair dimensions as 'wheelchairs' for the purposes of the Equality Act.

 

[bnm]

This thread is a mess

1) Mobility scooter and wheelchair are interchangeable terms. The Rail Safety and Standards Board have said that mobility scooters count as wheelchairs where they are of comparable size and are thus protected
2) Mobility scooters do not easily fold down to the same size as a standard piece of luggage. Often just the back wheels and motor detach and the handles fold down. They are comparable to several pieces of luggage and cannot be easily stored on a train. The easiest way of storing them for the convenience of all is to leave them in the disabled area
3) Prams, buggies, etc are designed to fold down easily. The baby had already been removed from it, there was no requirement for it to remain up
4) Disabled areas are for disabled people and are not for the convenience of anyone else who feels they have the right to use it. A disabled person who requires it should always, in all circumstances, take priority over able-bodied people. This should be a hard rule that is always followed. It is not for bikes, it is not for buggies, it is not for your large luggage. It is for a disabled person whether or not they are in their mobility aid. This is non-negotiable.
5) Blaming the treatment of this woman on her partner is an effort to distract from the fact that she was being discriminated against. Discrimination remains discrimination even if their travelling companion is acting unreasonably in your opinion. Shockingly, seeing someone you are travelling with being discriminate often makes you act in ways you normally would not

I note that a lot of effort has been expended from the very start of this thread trying to find reasons why the disabled woman should not have been on the train/should have moved for an able-bodied person/was the cause of the problem/acted unreasonably (as well as referring to her necessary mobility aid as "luggage"). The reasons why people are doing this can only be conjected, but it shows that in society in general as well as in this specific incident disabled people are always seen as a burden and are expected to acquiesce to the demands of able-bodied society. People engaging in this behaviour should be taking a long hard look at themselves and question why they instantly assumed the disabled woman to be in the wrong

(Also the fact that a disabled person spoke of their experiences on trains and this was completely ignored by people desperate to prove the disabled woman was the real problem. Shameful)

Bravo.

I've expended a lot of time and energy on this thread coming to the defence of Tanyalee. Taking to task those attempting to justify the actions of the GWR TM. You've neatly summed up all I've said in one post. Thank-you.

Why do we have the legislation? Why do the likes of the RSSB, ORR and DfT clarify? Because of the attitude and mindset of those who think disabled people are an inconvenience. We've come a long way from plonking the mobility impaired in guards vans. Attitudes displayed in this thread and by the TM involved in this incident show we still have some way to go.

With GWR quickly condemning what happened and the publicity this incident has generated I just hope that some good can come from it. And yes, Tanyalee Davis is fully justified in courting the media. For her this was not an isolated incident, just one of the worst. Sometimes you just have to say enough is enough and push back at a society that accepts and tries to justify this sort of treatment of the disabled.

 

[bnm]

I note the guard was making the point that seats were available elsewhere in the train.

To which he should have directed and assisted Mum and baby. After explaining to Mum that Tanyalee Davies had a legal right to occupy the disabled space.

 

[Deafdoggie]

This all seems to make it even more unclear. Definitely more to this. It appears that someone who was entitled to be where they were, was asked to move for no reason whatsoever. This makes even less sense now!
I didn't hear the programme, were GWR on too? Or was it a one-sided argument?

 

[father_jack]

See Voyager on fire at Derby thread to put some context into any saga of wheelchairs and unfolded perambulators and mobility devices.....

 

[bnm]

See Voyager on fire at Derby thread to put some context into any saga of wheelchairs and unfolded perambulators and mobility devices.....

Indeed. Which makes the TMs proposed solution of putting the mobility aid in the vestibule in front of an exit door even more unfathomable. And that's after insisting it be moved from the disabled space where it was clear of the aisle and not obstructing any potential emergency egress route.

 

[nottsnurse]

To which he should have directed and assisted Mum and baby. After explaining to Mum that Tanyalee Davies had a legal right to occupy the disabled space.

Indeed.

As the father of a registered disabled daughter I am often dismayed at the attitudes both seemingly otherwise sensible individuals and organisations have towards disabled people. As has been mentioned we (I include myself as I am my daughters carer) are often viewed as an inconvenience. This is why we often have to fall back on legislation and not 'compromise', because doing so becomes a slippery slope that leads to the disabled being shunted into vestibules or thrown off a train service.

An able-bodied (there is no suggestion otherwise in the evidence provided so far) mother with an infant, who chooses to burden herself with a large pram, luggage and car seat whilst travelling alone has no rights that superceded those of the disabled.

Regardless of "not seeing the start" of this incident, the fact the TM believed the best 'compromise' was to separate a disabled person from their mobility aid and replace said mobility aid with an able-bodied person's 'luggage' is a shocking bit of decision making.

 

[Bromley boy]

Indeed. Which makes the TMs proposed solution of putting the mobility aid in the vestibule in front of an exit door even more unfathomable. And that's after insisting it be moved from the disabled space where it was clear of the aisle and not obstructing any potential emergency egress route.

I would suggest that, if a mobility scooter cannot be folded by its operator/their travelling companion, it shouldn't be allowed on board in the first place.

 

[AlterEgo]

To which he should have directed and assisted Mum and baby. After explaining to Mum that Tanyalee Davies had a legal right to occupy the disabled space.

Do you mean the companion seat? That's where her partner was. As you point out, she was actually sat in a seat, a bay of four, apparently unreserved. There was no person occupying the disabled space, though her mobility aid was.

I agree that it is wrong to require a mobility aid be moved for a pram. There is no defence to that, and it is infuriating that she was then told to move the scooter to the vestibule, where it would have been more of a nuisance to everyone than had it been kept in the wheelchair space. Tanyalee says in the video she has no issue with complying with a request to move for a wheelchair user, but to make her move for a pram - which should have been folded and stowed - is very wrong.

 

[nottsnurse]

I would suggest that, if a mobility scooter cannot be folded by its operator/their travelling companion, it shouldn't be allowed on board in the first place.

Do you work for the RSSB, ORR or DFT? They seem pretty clear on the matter.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would suggest that, if a mobility scooter cannot be folded by its operator/their travelling companion, it shouldn't be allowed on board in the first place.

That is almost the rule in force.

GWR require you to have a permit for your scooter if it is a non-foldable type. They will even send someone out to measure your scooter.

If you do not have a permit:

We can still take your mobility scooter if it can be folded down – to no bigger than an average large suitcase –because it can go in the luggage rack.

Therefore Tanyalee's scooter should, if it was the foldable type (and we don't yet know for sure it was, but it certainly seems 95% certain given its small size, and the way she talks about it), have been folded up and put in the luggage rack, and it should not have been in the disabled space at all.

This doesn't negate the wrongness of requiring a mobility scooter fouling the rules having to move for a pram which was also fouling the rules. The pram should also have been stowed and folded.

Just about everyone in the whole scene has done something they shouldn't have, with the greatest burden of fault placed on the guard, and the least on Tanyalee.

 

[bnm]

I would suggest that, if a mobility scooter cannot be folded by its operator/their travelling companion, it shouldn't be allowed on board in the first place.

That would be at odds with the RSSB, ORR and DfT guidance to TOCs in respect of the legislation. If the mobility aid complies with maximum dimensions rules it is, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, a 'wheelchair'. That's what those bodies are telling the TOCs. Should the principle be tested in court I'm confident a judgement would not differentiate.

 

[nottsnurse]

Prehaps you should link to the RSSB, ORR and DFT guidance regarding mobility aids again 'bnm'? Seems a fair few people on this thread are continuing to post comments/'advice' that runs counter to them, despite you posting them multiple times already.

 

[Bromley boy]

Do you work for the RSSB, ORR or DFT? They seem pretty clear on the matter.

The guard in question works for a TOC whose policies he will have to implement.

Many stations do not have disabled access so there is clearly grandfathering in place with respect to disability access regulations, I’m not sure how this applies to carriage of mobility vehicles.

Therefore Tanyalee's scooter should, if it was the foldable type (and we don't yet know for sure it was, but it certainly seems 95% certain given its small size, and the way she talks about it), have been folded up and put in the luggage rack, and it should not have been in the disabled space at all.

This doesn't negate the wrongness of requiring a mobility scooter fouling the rules having to move for a pram which was also fouling the rules. The pram should also have been stowed and folded.

Agreed. It seems that both pram and scooter should have been folded and stowed in this case.

 

[bnm]

That is almost the rule in force.

GWR require you to have a permit for your scooter if it is a non-foldable type. They will even send someone out to measure your scooter.

If you do not have a permit:



Therefore Tanyalee's scooter should, if it was the foldable type (and we don't yet know for sure it was, but it certainly seems 95% certain given its small size, and the way she talks about it), have been folded up and put in the luggage rack, and it should not have been in the disabled space at all.

This doesn't negate the wrongness of requiring a mobility scooter fouling the rules having to move for a pram which was also fouling the rules. The pram should also have been stowed and folded.

Just about everyone in the whole scene has done something they shouldn't have, with the greatest burden of fault placed on the guard, and the least on Tanyalee.

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.

 

[Bromley boy]

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.

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

https://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/rese...lchair-and-Scooter-Guidance-passengers-v2.pdf

None of the regulations explicitly require rail companies to carry passengers travelling on a ‘mobility scooter’ or other ‘mobility aid’, but most GB train operators do. Although the legislation is unclear on the specifics of mobility scooters, the Department for Transport (DfT) and Office of Rail and Road (ORR) have indicated there is no clear basis in either set of regulations for differentiating between wheelchair and mobility scooter devices using a ‘wheelchair space’ on-board rail vehicles - provided they meet a common ‘reference wheelchair’ specification (Length: 1200mm, Width: 700mm, Height: 1350mm, Laden weight: 300kg, and specific manoeuvrability characteristics).
[/UNQUOTE]

So the RSSB’s view is that there is no legal requirement for them to be accommodated in the first place.