Disabled passenger claims Northern guard's behaviour gave her panic attack.

[Bromley boy]

He was causing significant distress to someone clearly in a vulnerable position, who had been boarded by other members of staff. She was within her rights to record and publish what occurred. It is the responsibility of the employer to fully investigate the matter and take any relevant disciplinary matters, training or compensation in to account.

How many more times?!

She had boarded the train in breach of the TOC’s policy which the guard was trying to enforce.

If she had fallen off the bloody scooter and been injured no doubt there would be outraged posters on here discussing how the guard shouldn’t have allowed the scooter on board in breach of policy (and the guard’s managers would take a dim view of the inevitable lawsuit).

So really that guard was damned either way.

Perhaps the best solution is to insist on a standard design of wheelchair that can be used on the railway (all TOCs accept wheelchairs) and not permit mobility scooters at all.

 

[Darandio]

If you don't want your actions becoming public then don't work in a public facing role.

So if i'm in a public facing role it's fair game to stick a camera in my face when i'm competently doing my job? And because it's a public facing role, I should just grit my teeth and accept it? What the hell is wrong with the world today?

 

[PeterC]

So if i'm in a public facing role it's fair game to stick a camera in my face when i'm competently doing my job? And because it's a public facing role, I should just grit my teeth and accept it? What the hell is wrong with the world today?

Welcome to the internet age.

Scooters and wheelchairs should have manufacturer fitted plates to inform users, and transport staff, if they fit the respective legal requirement for buses and trains. No arguement, the label on the machine tells you if you can use it or not.

 

[CeeJ]

She had boarded the train in breach of the TOC’s policy which the guard was trying to enforce.

If she had fallen off the bloody scooter and been injured no doubt there would be outraged posters on here discussing how the guard shouldn’t have allowed the scooter on board in breach of policy (and the guard’s managers would take a dim view of the inevitable lawsuit).

I understand that the guard was enforcing policy, but when it starts causing undue stress you've just got to back down. The key factor here is that platform staff let (and helped) her board, had the guard refused to let her on the train it wouldn't really be an issue.

 

[AlterEgo]

I understand that the guard was enforcing policy, but when it starts causing undue stress you've just got to back down. The key factor here is that platform staff let (and helped) her board, had the guard refused to let her on the train it wouldn't really be an issue.

Doesn’t matter. You don’t publish video of staff/customer conflict. The cards are stacked very heavily against the person upholding the company line, so much so that it’s almost inviting them to be bullied.

I run a YouTube channel and I routinely record staff in the course of their work, but where I’ve had footage of some sort of disagreement or bad service, I don’t publish those clips and take it up privately. This happened once on VTEC with me.

I don’t think you understand that the guard can’t just “back down” and let someone do what they want because they’re distressed.

 

[Bromley boy]

I understand that the guard was enforcing policy, but when it starts causing undue stress you've just got to back down. The key factor here is that platform staff let (and helped) her board, had the guard refused to let her on the train it wouldn't really be an issue.

I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that.

The railway owes a “duty of care” to passengers, even those who are doing things they shouldn’t. As such, staff are duty bound to enforce safety policies on pain of job loss or even criminal charges. You can’t allow people to do things they aren’t allowed to do just because telling them not to causes them stress.

The fact the platform staff (were they even northern employees?) erroneously boarded her, perhaps without the guard’s knowledge, doesn’t change that.

 

[Eccles1983]

I understand that the guard was enforcing policy, but when it starts causing undue stress you've just got to back down. The key factor here is that platform staff let (and helped) her board, had the guard refused to let her on the train it wouldn't really be an issue.

Undue stress?

Sorry, she was in the wrong. The only safe way of backing down would of been to cancel the service with the passenger refusing to leave.

No way would I of carried the scooter knowing full well that it is not allowed. It is irrelevant how or why it ended up on the train, fact is the second the guard realised it was on then the train stops until the scooter comes off.

No two ways about it.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I was having a pint after work last Friday - in the Railway Tavern of course- a young couple were moving into one of the flats across the road and they left some dinning room table chairs on the street outside unattended maybe they stopped for a brew. Anyway along comes this bloke in a mobility scooter and picks up a couple of them and try's to go off with them. The boys in the pub shouted at him and he dropped them and speed off.

Now if he had not been spotted and gone to the station should staff have helped him and his stolen chairs onboard? Imagine he might have looked a bit distrssed and was looking over his shoulder......

 

[Bletchleyite]

CCTV also works both ways and is regularly used when allegations are made against staff (although generally no sound is recorded).

To be fair, I did have CCTV used in my complaint against a shuttle bus driver at Luton Airport which, being as it[1] was clearly serious misconduct, appears to have caused said member of staff to lose her job (I never saw her again, anyway). So yes, it can go both ways. However, what it won't tend to be used for is when the customer believes they have a case against the railway *management* who control it, in which case it will often go missing.

[1] Deliberately closed the rear doors on a boarding passenger causing her (an older lady) to be trapped in the doors and her shoe to be stuck on the inside of the bus, and refusing to reopen the doors for her to retrieve it on polite request, citing a non-existent policy that boarding was through the front door only. I got a phone call from the bus operator apologising and stating that they did agree with my version of events from having viewed the CCTV, so while they obviously didn't state what action was going to be taken some clearly was.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s still not okay to live stream a conflict with a member of customer service staff. That’s not on and can destroy someone’s career, because a film doesn’t usually give the whole context of the conflict.

Anyone who publishes a video like this this loses respect in my eyes.

However, personally I do think filming it to provide to the TOC as evidence to back up a later complaint (or, in this case, to back up the complaint being dismissed as policy was being followed) is a valid thing to do. Though I'm aware not everyone supports this.

 

[HowardGWR]

I was having a pint after work last Friday - in the Railway Tavern of course- a young couple were moving into one of the flats across the road and they left some dinning room table chairs on the street outside unattended maybe they stopped for a brew. Anyway along comes this bloke in a mobility scooter and picks up a couple of them and try's to go off with them. The boys in the pub shouted at him and he dropped them and speed off.

Now if he had not been spotted and gone to the station should staff have helped him and his stolen chairs onboard? Imagine he might have looked a bit distrssed and was looking over his shoulder......

I expect it was the character portrayed in Little Britain.

 

[8J]

It’s not really been touched on too much on this thread, but surely the station staff at Manchester Oxford Road should be held to account for boarding the scooter when the policy is very clear.

This station is operated by Northern so it’s not as if the staff won’t be familiar with the policy.

 

[maire23]

How many more times?!

She had boarded the train in breach of the TOC’s policy which the guard was trying to enforce.

If she had fallen off the bloody scooter and been injured no doubt there would be outraged posters on here discussing how the guard shouldn’t have allowed the scooter on board in breach of policy (and the guard’s managers would take a dim view of the inevitable lawsuit).

So really that guard was damned either way.

Perhaps the best solution is to insist on a standard design of wheelchair that can be used on the railway (all TOCs accept wheelchairs) and not permit mobility scooters at all.

Not one wheelchair suits all- that would never work unfortunately.

 

[PeterC]

Not one wheelchair suits all- that would never work unfortunately.

No but only chairs / scooters within certain parameters and it should be down to the manufacturer to fit a plate to show the compliance status.

 

[farleigh]

I understand that the guard was enforcing policy, but when it starts causing undue stress you've just got to back down. The key factor here is that platform staff let (and helped) her board, had the guard refused to let her on the train it wouldn't really be an issue.

and if he had and she had a problem then he would have been to blame.

 

[yorkie]

It sounds like the Guard acted correctly in terms of not allowing the scooter to remain on the train, however the allegation is that the Guard became "angry" and said "get off the train, I am not going anywhere with her on this train, scooters aren't allowed on any train"; the suggestion is that the tone and manner in which the Guard's concerns were expressed was not appropriate.

I don't think that is on the video, so we may never know for sure if that was the case or not.

However I have witnessed similarly unprofessional behaviour by a minority of Northern Guards and I am aware some people have been verbally abused and sworn at too, so unfortunately I know it does happen on occasion.

It is very difficult to enforce an unpopular decision, but when you are in such a tricky situation, it is very important to come across in a professional and caring manner. Of course the vast majority of rail staff do handle such situations in a very professional way however I firmly believe certain train companies, inducing Northern, do have room for improvement to ensure all their staff are following the high professional standards that are expected, and ensure proper safeguards are in place.

....A camera shoved into someone’s face....

Clearly it would not be appropriate to do that, but does that have any relevance to this incident?

 

[Bromley boy]

Not one wheelchair suits all- that would never work unfortunately.

Isn’t there a standardised definition/measurement for wheelchairs? I don’t know.

I have undersrood from your previous posts that you’re autistic (as the complainant in the OP was), and would welcome your views on this scenario and how the railway could have handled it better. Things could and should be far better for autistics on the railway.

and if he had and she had a problem then he would have been to blame.

No, he wouldn’t.

Clearly it would not be appropriate to do that, but does that have any relevance to this incident?

Not necessarily shoved into the guards face, in this case, but it isn’t ideal being in a situation at work where you’re being attacked, interrogated, you cannot retreat from (and your TOC won’t necessarily back you), + knowing your every move might be put onto YouTube.

As a driver I’m thankfully rarely exposed to these scenarios!*

*or at least don’t hold forth until I know I’m not being filmed .

 

[farleigh]

Could we entitle the thread something like 'Somebody got a bit sulky and acted inappropriately when told they were not allowed to do something'?

 

[northwichcat]

Could we entitle the thread something like 'Somebody got a bit sulky and acted inappropriately when told they were not allowed to do something'?

As stated in the original post she has two disabilities - one physical, one mental or 'hidden.' Rail staff should be the one making allowances for passengers with mental/ hidden disabilities, passengers with those disabilities can't make their disabilities disappear because a member of staff is ignorant towards certain disabilities.

 

[Richard1960]

As stated in the original post she has two disabilities - one physical, one mental or 'hidden.' Rail staff should be the one making allowances for passengers with mental/ hidden disabilities, passengers with those disabilities can't make their disabilities disappear because a member of staff is ignorant towards certain disabilities.

No your right I come under the equality act 2010 for my disability I may be wrong but staff don't seem to get any training in "Hidden Disabilities" .

Having said that a big heads up to GA staff who went out of their way to help me on at Cambridge station last night ,so there are some very good staff out there ,and I am happy to say that. In the past I have had some very bad experiences when travelling .

 

[Bletchleyite]

As stated in the original post she has two disabilities - one physical, one mental or 'hidden.' Rail staff should be the one making allowances for passengers with mental/ hidden disabilities, passengers with those disabilities can't make their disabilities disappear because a member of staff is ignorant towards certain disabilities.

It isn't a reasonable adjustment for a disability to allow someone to do something that is not permitted for safety reasons[1] because their disability could cause them to have a panic attack in the event of refusal.

For people who can't deal with refusal in public for whatever reason, the best option is for they themselves to make the adjustment by doing their research before carrying out a particular task. Crikey, I find I embarrass really easily if told off for something and I do research on things like that in order to avoid that; with a disability where that is all the more important I'd be more likely to do it, not less.

Now, it seems the guard's attitude was a bit wrong here, but beyond that? There was still no way the passenger would be being carried.

[1] I know this one is debatable as to whether it should change, but regardless no member of front line staff has the right, nor should have the right, to vary a safety rule.

 

[Richard1960]

Could we entitle the thread something like 'Somebody got a bit sulky and acted inappropriately when told they were not allowed to do something'?

Perhaps we could create a thread " I do not know much about hidden disabilities " instead .

 

[farleigh]

Perhaps we could create a thread " I do not know much about hidden disabilities " instead .

By all means. In the mean time, we could create one entitled 'What is a reasonable adjustment'.

 

[northwichcat]

How many more times?!

She had boarded the train in breach of the TOC’s policy which the guard was trying to enforce.

If she had fallen off the bloody scooter and been injured no doubt there would be outraged posters on here discussing how the guard shouldn’t have allowed the scooter on board in breach of policy (and the guard’s managers would take a dim view of the inevitable lawsuit).

So really that guard was damned either way.

Perhaps the best solution is to insist on a standard design of wheelchair that can be used on the railway (all TOCs accept wheelchairs) and not permit mobility scooters at all.

With many things on Northern guards are allowed to used discretion and things can vary considerably. There's guards who turn a blind eye to passengers with bikes boarding through the wrong doors, leaving bikes in the wrong place or bringing a bike on when there are already 2 bikes on board. Then there's other guards who strictly enforce the 2 bikes per train policy and don't allow passengers with bikes to leave them in inappropriate places.

Another case I've made been aware of is an old lady turning up at Greenbank (unstaffed station served by only Northern services) with a mobility scooter. The guard put down the ramp for her and happily sold her a return ticket without mentioning that he was making special provision by allowing the mobility scooter on the train. She ended her journey at Chester, turned up for a train back to Greenbank to encounter a guard telling her no mobility scooters are allowed on trains and telling her she needed to get a taxi at her own expense as she wouldn't be able to get back by train. That might be precisely why the passenger mentioned in the original post wanted to share the incident on social media - TOCs react very differently when they think they'll get negative press from an incident than when they think they'll just get an angry phone call.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps we could create a thread " I do not know much about hidden disabilities " instead .

I thought the person's hidden disability here manifested itself by acting inappropriately when told they couldn't do something. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Richard1960]

By all means. In the mean time, we could create one entitled 'What is a reasonable adjustment'.

No I agree a reasonable adjustment is a very loose term if it was for safety reasons the scooter could not remain on ,allowing it to stay would not have ben reasonable , I think scooter manufacturers need to take account of this and warn customers their scooter does not fit the requirements to travel on trains.

Having said that it would all depend on how the guard handled the situation , panic attacks are not funny at all you have to stay very calm.

 

[Richard1960]

I thought the person's hidden disability here manifested itself by acting inappropriately when told they couldn't do something. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Was the person having aq panic attack ,which is a hidden disability rather then acting inappropriately on purpose.

 

[northwichcat]

By all means. In the mean time, we could create one entitled 'What is a reasonable adjustment'.

Taking a minute to clearly explain the situation in this case could have gone a long way and the guard ensuring he wasn't in her earshot when he said to a fellow staff member something like "I want her removed from my train." I'm sure those with disabilities can understand why provision on a train built in the 1980s with single narrow doors is different to on newer trains, if it's explained clearly. Although, if she was sold a ticket by the ticket office at Chester it's less easy to explain why someone would sell a ticket to Bolton without explaining that there are no trains to Bolton which convey mobility scooters.

 

[Mag_seven]

How is a member of staff to know if someone has a hidden disability since by definition its hidden?

 

[AlterEgo]

Was the person having aq panic attack ,which is a hidden disability rather then acting inappropriately on purpose.

Nobody said anything about "on purpose".