Refused a valid ticket by booking office staff!

[tony_mac]

I also take the view that the railways are already offering a massive service by even providing taxis. That surely is not a legal requirement (yet- possibly in 2013), (maybe a franchise one) as if you are in a wheelchair, you can't get a step entrance bus- it's tough luck, you find a different method.

I take it you haven't seen this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3984199.stm

As for the taxi situation between Warrington Central/Bank Quay, why should anyone with a disability get a taxi, the journey planners tell you there is a walk, if you don't think your capable of that, choose a different route?!

Because, at night, there is no route that some disabled people can take to get to Warrington Bank Quay from Liverpool; an able-bodied person can change at Earlestown.

BTW, I agree that it's a potentially difficult situation to be in, and is open to possible abuse. However, you can't just state that 'he's not registered disabled so we don't have to do anything'.
And, in this case, there is an easy solution, that would make no actual difference to anyone, to just let him travel via Chester.
Maybe by refusing this simple request he will end up having to have taxis provided for part of the journey, who will be the winner in that situation?

 

[yorkie]

That's the story I remember!

Central Trains, former station owners, offered disabled passengers free travel to Ely, 30 miles away, where they could cross the tracks, change trains and then travel back in the opposite direction.

This proves the point that a TOC will want a passenger to take a longer route, rather than provide a taxi. If the customer is happy to do that, then there is no issue. It only becomes an issue if the customer insists on a taxi as they do not want to take a longer route.

I am pleased to hear that 'Multiple Unit' has no problem with the vast majority of on board guards, most of whom are very good. If he has problems with some, then a polite letter to the TOC should resolve the issue. As for ticket office staff, it is my experience that they are more likely to be obstructive, again a polite letter to the TOC should sort it.

I'm not one for wanting disabled people to make unreasonable demands, but the idea that it is unreasonable for a disabled person to travel via a longer route but that they should instead be provided with a taxi is not only unreasonable but the complete opposite of what Central Trains were arguing. The conclusion reached by 'First Class' is baffling, however it is Merseyrail managers who must take the blame for poor training in this area, in my opinion.

However if Merseyrail want to waste money on taxis, fine as long as it's out of the company profits and not taxpayers money!

 

[First class]

I take it you haven't seen this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3984199.stm
.

Yes, but:

A county court judge backed the firm when it refused to offer him a taxi to get around the problem.

If he asked for a taxi, he'd get one. Most TOCs would authorise one straight away. I've no problem with that. Central should have gotten him a taxi. A taxi is available should he want one.

However, unlike the man in the article, Multiple Unit does want to go a long way round instead, which isn't an option when a reasonable alternative (taxi) is being provided on request.

The judge is also backing the fact that is unreasonable to expect passengers to go a different route:

On Friday Lord Justice Sedley said it was unreasonable to expect Mr Roads to travel in the opposite direction just to catch a train back again.

Therefore, no TOC is going to allow Multiple Unit to travel off-route, in case he ever turns round and says he is being "discriminated" against and has no other option to go that way.

 

[royaloak]

Multiple Unit are you registerd disabled yes or no, if not then you need a valid ticket for the route you wish to take. Just because YOU decide you dont like using underground lines doesnt make you disabled.
By what you have written it sounds as if you were having a go at the guard who was doing his job correctly, but as YOU didnt get what you wanted, even though yoiu were not entitled to it, the chap is a "jobsworth" but i would class him as an excellent employee for doing his job correctly and dealing with a fare evader ie you!

 

[tony_mac]

Therefore, no TOC is going to allow Multiple Unit to travel off-route, in case he ever turns round and says he is being "discriminated" against and has no other option to go that way.

That's nonsense.
There is a huge difference between being allowed to go on a slightly longer route, and being forced to spend an hour doubling-back between stations rather than have a taxi provided.

The rail company wanted to provide the longer route, if the passenger is happy with this then of course it would be allowed, and a sensible solution.

 

[First class]

First class are you registerd disabled yes or no, if not then you need a valid ticket for the route you wish to take. Just because YOU decide you dont like using underground lines doesnt make you disabled.
By what you have written it sounds as if you were having a go at the guard who was doing his job correctly, but as YOU didnt get what you wanted, even though yoiu were not entitled to it, the chap is a "jobsworth" but i would class him as an excellent employee for doing his job correctly and dealing with a fare evader ie you!

Eh? I am sticking up for the guard and giving reasons why Multiple Unit was wrong and what he should be doing instead!

It was Multiple Unit who had this problem - not me!

Please edit.

 

[tony_mac]

First class are you registerd disabled yes or no, if not then you need a valid ticket for the route you wish to take. Just because YOU decide you dont like using underground lines doesnt make you disabled.
By what you have written it sounds as if you were having a go at the guard who was doing his job correctly, but as YOU didnt get what you wanted, even though yoiu were not entitled to it, the chap is a "jobsworth" but i would class him as an excellent employee for doing his job correctly and dealing with a fare evader ie you!

You've got the wrong person,
You do not need to be registered disabled to be disabled.

It's not about the underground, that was just a silly example - it's because a change of trains on that route would involve crossing a footbridge.

He is a fare evader because he can't cross a footbridge? That's just stupid.

 

[royaloak]

sorry FC, post edited

 

[yorkie]

Eh? I am sticking up for the guard ....

From what he said, one guard had a problem with him, the others were all fine. So the vast majority of guards are understanding toward disabled people. That is good. By the way guards have something called a 'duty of care' particularly toward vulnerable people, and I am pleased to hear that the majority are doing a good job in that respect.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

sorry FC, post edited

But it still doesn't make sense.

It was 'First Class' who made the reference to underground lines, however he was using it as an analogy.

'Multiple unit' has a problem with accessibility, not being scared of Underground lines.

 

[First class]

That's the story I remember!



This proves the point that a TOC will want a passenger to take a longer route, rather than provide a taxi. If the customer is happy to do that, then there is no issue. It only becomes an issue if the customer insists on a taxi as they do not want to take a longer route.

I am pleased to hear that 'Multiple Unit' has no problem with the vast majority of on board guards, most of whom are very good. If he has problems with some, then a polite letter to the TOC should resolve the issue. As for ticket office staff, it is my experience that they are more likely to be obstructive, again a polite letter to the TOC should sort it.

I'm not one for wanting disabled people to make unreasonable demands, but the idea that it is unreasonable for a disabled person to travel via a longer route but that they should instead be provided with a taxi is not only unreasonable but the complete opposite of what Central Trains were arguing. The conclusion reached by 'First Class' is baffling, however it is Merseyrail managers who must take the blame for poor training in this area, in my opinion.

However if Merseyrail want to waste money on taxis, fine as long as it's out of the company profits and not taxpayers money!

Merseyrail is very generous to their passengers with disabilities, and 99.9% of the time finds it easier/better for the passenger to get them a taxi between affected stations. The thing on Merseyrail is that most people with a disability have a pass permitting them entirely free travel over the network, so they would never be "off route".

A guard has a duty of care, correct, but is it reasonable to assume that anyone that claims to be disabled (and getting an advantage) actually is? It is a very sensitive situation- I suppose you go with your instinct to whether they are trying it on or not... there are some very sick and twisted people in this world who will do anything to get anything.

Like it or not, he is technically "evading paying the correct fare". That is not the issue, it's how that is dealt with that is.

MY ORIGINAL POINT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN LOST:

YOU CANNOT DO WHAT YOU LIKE - I HAVE NO PROBLEM DISABLED PASSENGERS GOING OFF ROUTE, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE FULL AUTHORISATION FROM A TOC (IN WRITING) AND YOU HOLD A VALID TICKET -
OR YOU HOLD A TICKET VALID VIA THAT ROUTE.

YOU WILL FIND THOUGH, THAT MOST TOCS, ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO OFFER YOU AN EASIER OPTION OF A FREE TAXI.

 

[yorkie]

YOU WILL FIND THOUGH, THAT MOST TOCS, ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO OFFER YOU AN EASIER OPTION OF A FREE TAXI.

But it is absurd for a TOC to demand that they pay for a taxi if a disabled person is prepared to be independent and take a slightly longer route. It is a waste of taxpayers money. Many disabled people do not like to make a big deal of their disability and want to be independent. They should be allowed to do so if they wish.

 

[royaloak]

Where do we draw the line, the "I cant be arsed to climb the stairs brigade" would have a field day, if you are not registered disabled the railways are under no obligation to help you, now a quiet word BEFORE boarding the train MAY be the way to go, but just getting on the train with a known invalid ticket "because it suits me better" is asking for trouble, and it sounds like MU (deservedly) got it in spades.

 

[tony_mac]

I HAVE NO PROBLEM DISABLED PASSENGERS GOING OFF ROUTE, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE FULL AUTHORISATION FROM A TOC (IN WRITING)

The issue with that is that you are potentially making disabled people jump through hoops in order to use the service. Would you believe that some disabilities also make reading and writing difficult?

If you believe that somebody is not disabled, you can refuse to provide the service, and hope that you don't end up in court. That doesn't mean you can put other obstacles in the way of disabled people, such as having to apply in writing.

 

[First class]

But it is absurd for a TOC to demand that they pay for a taxi if a disabled person is prepared to be independent and take a slightly longer route. It is a waste of taxpayers money. Many disabled people do not like to make a big deal of their disability and want to be independent. They should be allowed to do so if they wish.

You can't demand a customer gets a taxi, but you would have to explain to them that their current ticket does not permit them to travel that way, and either get authorisation from a senior manager to authorise their tickets, or sell them an excess.
Just because your TOC may accept them, does not mean the next TOC will and that has been caused by things like ORCATS and competition.

 

[yorkie]

So you say the choice is: give up their independence and cost the taxpayers and the company a taxi ride, or pay more? Somehow that doesn't seem to make any sense, and I am not sure that view would comply with the DDA. In effect you are forcing them to lose their indepenence aren't you?

Does it make financial sense for the company? No
Does it make financial sense for taxpayers? No
Does it make the customer happy? No
Does it make a jobsworth happy? Yes
Could it land the jobsworth's company in court? Yes
Could the media have a field day with the news story? Yes

Ticks all the wrong boxes for me.

 

[First class]

The issue with that is that you are potentially making disabled people jump through hoops in order to use the service. Would you believe that some disabilities also make reading and writing difficult?

If you believe that somebody is not disabled, you can refuse to provide the service, and hope that you don't end up in court. That doesn't mean you can put other obstacles in the way of disabled people, such as having to apply in writing.

Passengers requiring assistance are already asked to give 24 hours notice... at the time of booking assistance, they should mention that their ticket may not cover them and seek advice.

I would judge that wanting to go a different route as "requiring assistance" as you require special arrangements to be in place.

Please try and give a minimum of 24 hours notice before your journey as this will allow time for any special arrangements to be made. If this is not possible the Train Companies will still do their best to help, but Cannot guarantee to provide their normal level of service.

They already have that obstacle of giving sufficient notice- surely it must be legal to do so.

 

[tony_mac]

If the slightly longer train route is more convenient to the passenger than the taxi, then I am quite sure that a court would find allowing it would be a reasonable adjustment that you must make.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Passengers requiring assistance are already asked to give 24 hours notice

Not on Merseyrail, they aren't

'Only one hour's notice is required' to arrange assisted travel

They already have that obstacle of giving sufficient notice- surely it must be legal to do so.

Because that is reasonably necessary.

 

[First class]

If the slightly longer train route is more convenient to the passenger than the taxi, then I am quite sure that a court would find allowing it would be a reasonable adjustment that you must make.

I agree wholeheartedly.

However, until that judgement is made- it remains an invalid option.

I am not arguing the morals on this. It's obvious that if a disabled person finds it helps them then great, let's do everything we can, whilst complying with rules and regulations.

I am arguing that until the rules are changed, this is not a valid option (technically).

I'd probably say adding it as a benefit to the disabled railcard may also be a good idea.

However, a new NRCoC term such as:

"Passengers with disabilities may travel via a route not usually permitted, under the following circumstances:

1) There is a benefit to the passenger when travelling by that route
2) The route taken is not too circuitous and is "within reason"
3) Applies to Anytime and Off-Peak (Day) tickets only. "

Would work well for everyone.

And yes, Merseyrail do only ask for an hours notice, and only 95% of passengers requiring assistance actually give that which can cause problems and complaints. The 24 hour notice thing was from ATOC's National Rail Enq.

 

[Deerfold]

No, most probably he has bought a ticket marked 'Any Permitted'.

He has then travelled a route that is Not Permitted, (according to the ATOC Routeing Guide).

One of the posters journeys was Birkenhead-Warrington, (valid only via Liverpool), when he was travelling via Chester.

The guard on the Chester-Warrington train could have charged him for a new ticket.

My thoughts are that this user is not registered as disabled, or is not disadvantaged enough to be considered, so as he would have a free travel pass between Birkenhead & Chester anyway. In which case, the TOC doesn't actually have to do anything.

As for Yorkie's post, no, the TOC is not breaching the DDA, because they usually offer "alternative transport" to genuine cases, therefore providing disabled people with (usually much better) access to a station at no extra cost or disadvantage.

There seem to be a lot of people getting very het up though we do not actually know what journey Multiple unit was making or what ticket it was on.

First Class, you seem to have made a lot of assumptions in your first reply, above, but we've not had any clarification either way. I'd prefer to know a bit more before having an opinion on whether it was reasonable or not.

 

[yorkie]

We do know the ticket, as it was posted on page 3 (ticket details here). "None of the guards had a problem with it" according to this post. That's the ticket that First Class is referring to, but there are a lot of assumptions nevertheless.

This contradicts with this post where he says he experienced a problem with a guard. So I wonder if it is two seperate incidents are being described? In which case we do not know what ticket he was on or what route he was taking when he experienced that problem.

 

[Deerfold]

He refused to issue it so I Went to the other station and got it there non of the Guards had a problem with it and still got my WSMR Ride.

Surely that was a different case? - As you say, the above reflects the poster's experience with that ticket. I got the impression the later dicussion was about a different journey,

 

[yorkie]

Surely that was a different case? - As you say, the above reflect's the poster's experience with that ticket. I got the impression the later dicussion was about a different journey,

Yes, I thought it was a different journey, but First Class is replying as if it's the same journey. We need 'Multiple Unit' to clarify what this journey was before anyone can judge it.

 

[Failed Unit]

I have been sat on the sidelines here but disabled can be very subjective.

I once had a leg in plaster and as a result I couldn't manage the footbridge at Barnetby to change trains with the Lincoln and Scunthorpe lines. I know changing at Grimsby in this case is valid so the cases are not the same, but I did that so I could use the barrow crossing and staff were there to assit me. (Barnetby is unstaffed).

I was not registed disabled just more like a Darlek, the bridge at Barnetby is now one that complies with the DDA. But during the time there were also certain underground stations I chose not to do as they were very difficult to cover on crutches. I thought that this is what the DDA covered, open access for everyone? I would have hope that the railway would have let me change at the next station with level access in that situation even if it wasn't a valid route. Better then me falling down the stairs legal action following or the expense of a 15 mile taxi ride (although at Barnetby I wouldn't have got off the station anyway).

 

[yorkie]

In reality the vast majority of staff would apply common sense and be understanding. Only a very small number would leave themselves and the company open to legal action by acting like 'jobsworths'. It's a shame that there is this minority like that, and also a shame that some people defend them. It does give the industry a bad name which is disappointing when the vast majority of staff do not deserve that bad name.

 

[Multiple Unit]

One Big problem is that in the National Rail Conditions of Cariage it says that ANy Restrictions ashouold be Shown on the Ticket thefore How is a Passenger Suposed to know What Permited Routes are surley if they want you to Travel only Via St.Helens Jnc to Warrington or Via Widnes this Should Be Displayed on the Ticket and why not Introduce a third route as Via Chester for say an Extra £1.00.

 

[A60K]

There's some sense in that - in Germany a point-to-point ticket will show the route(s) by which it is valid. I think however that we've got a far greater number of permitted routes than the German system, which is a good thing although making it more difficult to show all the permitted routes on a ticket. A Wick to Leuchars ticket would be simple enough: "via Inv*(Avi*Pth/Abd)*Dde", but try coding a Wick to London ticket!

 

[John @ home]

A Wick to Leuchars ticket would be simple enough: "via Inv*(Avi*Pth/Abd)*Dde", but try coding a Wick to London ticket!

If I am correctly interpreting that by '*' you mean 'AND' and by '/' you mean 'OR', then your coding omits

Wick - Inverness - Aviemore - Perth - (Newburgh) - Ladybank - Leuchars

which is a Permitted Route because it is not more than 3 miles longer than the shortest route.

Wick - Inverness - Aviemore - Perth = common route.

Perth - Dundee = 20.75 miles
Dundee - Leuchars = 8.25 miles
Total = 29.0 miles

Perth - (Newburgh) - Ladybank = 17.75 miles
Ladybank - Leuchars = 11.75 miles
Total = 29.5 miles

This instance is unusual because Ladybank is a Routeing Point for Leuchars but is not an appropriate Routeing Point for this journey because it fails the Fares Check for both Route Aviemore and Route Any Permitted fares.

Wick - Leuchars Route Aviemore SDS £39.20
Wick - Leuchars Route Any Permitted SDS £61.90

Wick - Ladybank Route Aviemore SDS £43.60
Wick - Ladybank Route Any Permitted SDS £64.80

Travel via Ladybank is permitted due to the shortest route rule.

This a worthwhile example because it shows how difficult it would be to print the permitted routes on the tickets accurately, even for an apparently simple journey.

 

[A60K]

Yes, that's the notation that European railways use to indicate via points. I didn't realise the ticket would be valid that way as well! You're absolutely right that trying to get routing information on British tickets would be almost impossible.

 

[Lee_Again]

Having read through all the comments, and similar points on other threads, there is a common theme. It is that certain people think that having a disability gives them the right to write their own rules. This is not the case. Disabled passengers have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

Now, having said that, quite rightly, exceptions are made for those with genuine disabilities; using normally invalid routes, suppying taxis etc. Most reasonable people would accept that as being the right thing to do. Where this falls down, and what gets poeples backs up, is when the system is abused.

People, who are clearly capable, demanding this that and the other, or people who are clearly not capable, but think this entitles them make their own rules, need to stop and think. The people I feel sorry for are those that do have genuine disabilities and suffer in silence because of the ignorant few. Same goes for disabled drivers too. As always, the genuine suffer the most.

As for Multiple Unit, you may well have a genuine case and your point seems reasonable enough, but you must follow the rules. If you have an issue you are required to give the TOC 24hrs notice; not just get on the train and expect people to allow your demand on the spot.

 

[yorkie]

As for Multiple Unit, you may well have a genuine case and your point seems reasonable enough, but you must follow the rules. If you have an issue you are required to give the TOC 24hrs notice; not just get on the train and expect people to allow your demand on the spot.

Has the 24hrs notice rule been tested in court? If he is not asking for assistance but merely to avoid footbridges by taking a slightly longer route then I think it is a questionable demand. It would be interesting to see how a court would rule on the matter.