Wheelchair Spaces on Trains

[Antman]

The question as posed by Neil Williams was what legal basis would there be for police to remove the passenger *if* they were called. This would be the basis.

I'm not the one making the claim that the driver would call the police in the first place.

So the driver calls the police, despite the fact there is nowhere else for the customer in the wheelchair space to move.

You suggested the customer in the wheelchair space could be removed from the bus as they would be committing an offence by not getting off when asked, because they had "put at risk or unreasonably impede or cause discomfort to any person travelling on or entering or leaving the vehicle" or "that he has been causing a nuisance".

Could you explain your thinking, as it is not clear what part of that legislation a person simply standing in the wheelchair space with nowhere else to go has triggered.

Just in case you haven't read the decision it said -

"An absolute rule that any non-wheelchair user must vacate the space would be unreasonable: there are many circumstances in which it could be unreasonable to expect a non-wheelchair user to vacate a space, and even more, to get off the bus, even where the space is needed by a wheelchair user. Even a qualified rule (i.e. that any non-wheelchair user must vacate if it is reasonable) implemented through mandatory enforcement would be likely to lead to confrontation with other passengers (not least where the non-wheelchair user vacating the space affected other travellers) and delay. Passengers are not clearly subject to a statutory obligation to comply with a policy relating to the use of the space, and would not appear to be under such an obligation to get off the bus if they fail to do so."

 

[najaB]

Could you explain your thinking, as it is not clear what part of that legislation a person simply standing in the wheelchair space with nowhere else to go has triggered.

By occupying the wheelchair space they are, arguably, putting the wheelchair passenger at risk. And by not moving when requested they are, arguably, being a nuisance (a person or thing causing inconvenience or annoyance.).

 

[Antman]

By occupying the wheelchair space they are, arguably, putting the wheelchair passenger at risk. And by not moving when requested they are, arguably, being a nuisance (a person or thing causing inconvenience or annoyance.).

The Supreme Court appears to disagree with that view.

 

[najaB]

The Supreme Court appears to disagree with that view.

Well, we don't know that since - as I understand it - that wasn't what the Supreme Court was asked to decide on.

 

[Antman]

Their judgement makes clear they had considered all of the options, including your point in the last sentence -

"An absolute rule that any non-wheelchair user must vacate the space would be unreasonable: there are many circumstances in which it could be unreasonable to expect a non-wheelchair user to vacate a space, and even more, to get off the bus, even where the space is needed by a wheelchair user. Even a qualified rule (i.e. that any non-wheelchair user must vacate if it is reasonable) implemented through mandatory enforcement would be likely to lead to confrontation with other passengers (not least where the non-wheelchair user vacating the space affected other travellers) and delay. Passengers are not clearly subject to a statutory obligation to comply with a policy relating to the use of the space, and would not appear to be under such an obligation to get off the bus if they fail to do so."

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are if they don't leave the bus when requested to do so.

No they aren't. They are breaching the bus company's T&Cs, which is a civil matter between the bus company and the individual and not a Police matter. Trespass is not a criminal offence.

The Police *might* act to avoid a potential breach of the peace, but that would depend on how the situation developed.

On the Railway the Byelaws provide for a legal framework for this - on the buses there is no such framework. The situation is legally basically the same as a nightclub, where Police have nothing to do with it unless another offence is committed.

 

[najaB]

No they aren't. They are breaching the bus company's T&Cs, which is a civil matter between the bus company and the individual and not a Police matter.

As I posted above, there *are* circumstances where refusing a request to leave a bus is a criminal offence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Their judgement makes clear they had considered all of the options, including your point in the last sentence...

As I understand it, the Court was asked to consider the applicability of a policy that mandated that bus drivers forced able-bodied people move from wheelchair spaces. They weren't asked to rule on if failing to move was or was putting the wheelchair passenger at risk.

 

[Antman]

As I understand it, the Court was asked to consider the applicability of a policy that mandated that bus drivers forced able-bodied people move from wheelchair spaces. They weren't asked to rule on if failing to move was or was putting the wheelchair passenger at risk.

The court concluded there was no requirement for the bus company or driver to force people to move from the wheelchair space. They ought to consider doing something other than simply asking, but only if appropriate.

The court concluded there were circumstances when someone other than a wheelchair user may need to be in a wheelchair space.

If they considered a wheelchair user at risk by not being able to use a wheelchair space because it was occupied by a non-wheelchair user, I am sure they would have mentioned it. Such an issue would have a key impact on who should occupy the space an the action the bus company should be expected to take. They didn't as they didn't consider it relevant.

 

[najaB]

The court concluded...

I think you are reading more into the ruling than was there. You are correct that the ruling means that drivers are under no obligation to make an able bodied person move so that a wheelchair-bound passenger could board.

Unless I missed it, they didn't say that a driver couldn't do so and made no ruling on the legality of a passenger remaining on board if the driver chose to request them to move on the grounds that they were putting the wheelchair passenger at risk.

 

[APUK002]

Can anyone confirm which coach on new 365's have disabled toilet and space, believe space can be used for bikes etc., but only when NOT required by disabled users.

 

[headshot119]

No they aren't. They are breaching the bus company's T&Cs, which is a civil matter between the bus company and the individual and not a Police matter. Trespass is not a criminal offence.

The Police *might* act to avoid a potential breach of the peace, but that would depend on how the situation developed.

On the Railway the Byelaws provide for a legal framework for this - on the buses there is no such framework. The situation is legally basically the same as a nightclub, where Police have nothing to do with it unless another offence is committed.

A nightclub is licensed premises and it's an offence to remain on the premises when asked to leave by a designated person.

Though I do agree buses don't have a legal framework to fall back on.

 

[Antman]

Unless I missed it, they didn't say that a driver couldn't do so and made no ruling on the legality of a passenger remaining on board if the driver chose to request them to move on the grounds that they were putting the wheelchair passenger at risk.

But the point of the case was the bus company didn't want its drivers doing that for a whole variety of reasons.

The Supreme Court would of course been aware of the legislation you quoted about harm or nuisance being caused.

If there was harm or nuisance the court could have simply pointed to that legislation and asked why they were being asked to look at a case on disability discrimination when there was already an answer. They didn't.

So given the Supreme Court didn't think there was harm or nuisance, on what basis is the driver telling someone to get off?

 

[najaB]

So given the Supreme Court didn't think there was harm or nuisance, on what basis is the driver telling someone to get off?

Again, reading something that isn't there...

The Supreme Court ruling said that since there are circumstances where it isn't practical or feasible for a driver to force an able bodied person to move, it isn't possible to have a blanket policy that requires the driver to take action.

Their ruling doesn't remove the driver's right to ask passengers to move if they perceive a safety risk.

If I have missed where it does then I'd appreciate the clarification.

 

[Antman]

Their ruling doesn't remove the driver's right to ask passengers to move if they perceive a safety risk.

The legislation you quoted didn't allow a driver to remove a customer simply if they perceived a safety risk.

The legislation created an offense if the person was actually causing harm or a nuisance, and even then didn't give a driver the legal right to throw someone off.

The right to order someone off the bus exists because the bus belongs to the bus company and they can do what they want, subject to discrimination and breach of contract. Safety gives them a reason, but not due to any legislation.

However the court case was because the bus company didn't want to get involved in throwing people off.

 

[najaB]

The legislation created an offense if the person was actually causing harm or a nuisance, and even then didn't give a driver the legal right to throw someone off.

You are correct. The power to request the passenger to leave is in § 8.2:

The conduct of passengers
(2) Any passenger on a vehicle who contravenes any provision of these Regulations may be removed from the vehicle by the driver, inspector or conductor of the vehicle or, on the request of the driver, inspector or conductor, by a police constable.

 

[Antman]

You seem to be going round in circles.

There is no debate the bus company can throw someone off.

The point is they didn't want to get involved, hence the court case.

 

[najaB]

There is no debate the bus company can throw someone off.

Other than you saying that they couldn't. I'm glad we now agree.

 

[Antman]

They always could, but you were asserting

By occupying the wheelchair space they are, arguably, putting the wheelchair passenger at risk. And by not moving when requested they are, arguably, being a nuisance (a person or thing causing inconvenience or annoyance.).

The issue was the court didn't otherwise there wouldn't have been a case.

 

[daikilo]

The court findings show that whilst specifc space must be provided for a disabled passenger, it is not required for anyone else. BUT, the judges found that there is no obvious mechanism to either ask a passenger already on board to vacate the space when the bus is "full" and even less to insist they leave the bus.

Once again we have a law with a laudable intent but which is difficult if not impossible to put in practice in certain circumstances. This needs to be resolved.

 

[XDM]

There was nothing in the judgement that required anyone already on the bus to get off.

The judgement is simply common sense. If the bus driver could do something, they should. If they can't, then they don't have to.

I have looked at all the posts & this one by dragonblyth about 20 posts ago seems to sum up the Supreme Court judgement simply & very clearly. Thanks dragonblyth.

 

[infobleep]

There was nothing in the judgement that required anyone already on the bus to get off.

The judgement said that if people not in a wheelchair were occupying a space needed by a wheelchair user, then if they didn't need to be in that space the bus company should have a policy to get them to move.

However it importantly said that if a non-wheelchair user could not move for some reason, the bus company shouldn't be required to force them to move.

So a crush loaded train with the wheelchair space full. The train company doesn't have to do anything as there is nowhere else to go.

Luggage in the wheelchair space. Again move it to there is somewhere to move it to, otherwise no need to do anything.

Bike in the space. Again move it if there is somewhere to move it to, otherwise no need to do anything.

The judgement is simply common sense. If the bus driver could do something, they should. If they can't, then they don't have to.

So did the disabled person win? The BBC think so. What was the judgement before this point?

 

[Antman]

The wheelchair user 'won' in so much as to say the bus company policy was found to be inadequate.That policy was asking someone to move but if they didn't, do nothing more.

The Supreme Court thought they should have done something more if the space was occupied by someone who didn't need it. However they decided that in some circumstances a non-wheelchair may need to use the space. So the wheelchair user 'lost' as they could not assert an absolute right to the space.

The Supreme Court by a split decision also refused to reinstate the damages awarded by the first court but which had been overturned on appeal.