'Northern worker' ignorant to specially adapted pushchair for disabled child

[pemma]

A family from Wigan said they were left 'humiliated' after a railway worker allegedly refused to provide a ramp to help their disabled daughter board a train.

Evana Parkinson, three, has a rare genetic condition and requires a wheelchair buggy when travelling as she suffers from pain in her legs.

Kayley, 25, dad Scott, 31 and big sister Erica, five, were travelling home following a weekend away when they boarded their final train at Manchester Piccadilly, but had to get off at Salford Crescent as the service would no longer be travelling all the way to Wigan.

Kayley spotted a Northern worker on the platform and asked if he could provide a ramp for when the next train arrived. But to her surprise she said the man replied no, adding Evana was in a pram and not a buggy so he could not help.

Kayley explained Evana was using a specialist buggy for disabled children, but the man continued to refuse to provide a ramp. She said the family were left feeling embarrassed when the worker allegedly started to ask other passengers if they thought it was a pram or a wheelchair.

Eventually the family were helped onto the train by another Northern staff member on the platform.

Kayley said: "I went to the Northern rail man on the platform to say could we use the ramp for the next train to Wigan.

"He said 'That is not a wheelchair'. I said it is a special needs buggy.

"She has the special needs buggy because she gets a lot of pain in her legs, it makes walking difficult for her.

"Being at the train station is a really dangerous place for her. She wouldn't be able to put her own weight on her legs.

"He said it is a pram, and I said it is a wheelchair. It even has a badge on the side that says 'Treat me like a wheelchair'.

"He kept saying it is a pram and started asking people on the platform if they thought it was a pram or a wheelchair.

"I do understand it was busy, but we went over really nicely and asked for a bit of help and he refused to give it to us. It was just really embarrassing.

"Evana didn't understand what was happening, but a lot of people were staring at us. It was a terrible experience for us. Her sister was wondering why everyone was staring at us.

"I want a bit of awareness. I don't want anyone else to face that embarrassment. In an ideal world nobody would have to.

"They need more training and to learn not every disability is visible. You shouldn't have to feel humiliated because because you have an invisible disability."

The Tomato specialist buggy is heavier than a standard pram and has special fittings to help Evana sit up and a large foot plate.

It was the first time the family have undertaken a long journey with Evana and said they were given help on seven out of the eight trains they travelled on across the weekend.

Evana's condition is so rare it does not have a name. She suffers from numerous issues related to the condition, such as hypermobility, pain in her legs and delayed development. Kayley said the family have since submitted a complaint to the rail operator.

We are sorry for the upset or distress our customer experienced following the incident at Salford Crescent.

“We are currently investigating what happened and will speak to the customer again as soon as possible as part of this process.

“Manual and powered wheelchairs can be taken on all of our trains, and station and train staff will be happy to help customers on and off our services.

– NORTHERN RAIL SPOKESPERSON

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...r-fails-to-help-three-year-old-in-wheelchair/

Sounds like some will need to benefit from the change to EU law regarding disability training for rail workers, discussed in another thread (unless we leave the EU with no deal and no transition period.)

I can understand the worker not recognising it was a special pushchair for a disabled child but I don't get why he refused to get the ramp even after the situation was explained to him and then effectively mocked the parents by asking passengers whether they thought it was a buggy or a wheelchair.

What makes this even worse is they wouldn't have ended up at Salford Crescent if Northern hadn't part cancelled a service.

 

[Gems]

https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...r-fails-to-help-three-year-old-in-wheelchair/

Sounds like some will need to benefit from the change to EU law regarding disability training for rail workers, discussed in another thread (unless we leave the EU with no deal and no transition period.)

I can understand the worker not recognising it was a special pushchair for a disabled child but I don't get why he refused to get the ramp even after the situation was explained to him and then effectively mocked the parents by asking passengers what they thought the buggy was a wheelchair.

What makes this even worse is they wouldn't have ended up at Salford Crescent if Northern hadn't part cancelled a service.

Let me say this. As a Northern guard that story made me so angry. Anyone with half a brain could figure out it wasn't a pram and would be considerably heavier.

I totally despair of some staff, I really do.

 

[pdeaves]

Why not do the decent thing and get the ramp for a 'pram' anyway, regardless of whether it falls under this definition or that definition? If someone could usefully do with some help, just provide it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Let me say this. As a Northern guard that story made me so angry. Anyone with half a brain could figure out it wasn't a pram and would be considerably heavier.

I totally despair of some staff, I really do.

I would personally recommend them to pursue a legal case for discrimination, not just a customer services complaint. This kind of thing needs a very firm whack around the head for companies not taking it seriously enough, and you can be sure that given the nature of Arriva Northern's management that they will require said whack.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not do the decent thing and get the ramp for a 'pram' anyway, regardless of whether it falls under this definition or that definition? If someone could usefully do with some help, just provide it!

Well, quite. If someone asks for help and you are in a position to provide it, why not provide it? Either Arriva policy (if he's been told not to) or that member of staff (if he's just being obstinate) is at fault in that regard too.

 

[Fearless]

Let me say this. As a Northern guard that story made me so angry. Anyone with half a brain could figure out it wasn't a pram and would be considerably heavier.

I totally despair of some staff, I really do.

Well, thank goodness we also have staff members like you, Gems. Restore the balance.

 

[jon0844]

Well, quite. If someone asks for help and you are in a position to provide it, why not provide it? Either Arriva policy (if he's been told not to) or that member of staff (if he's just being obstinate) is at fault in that regard too.

I cannot believe it would be a policy. Staff are empowered to use their initiative and discretion, and in addition to that the negative publicity such a situation would create is another reason you would simply assist. Management aren't exactly going to be thrilled that this happened to save a few seconds.

Any delay would go down as an assist, so what would be the problem anyway? Any delay minutes would be attributed to that.

 

[pdeaves]

Management aren't exactly going to be thrilled that this happened to save a few seconds.

And any 'saving' would be lost in the arguing with the customer anyway!

 

[Gems]

Why not do the decent thing and get the ramp for a 'pram' anyway, regardless of whether it falls under this definition or that definition? If someone could usefully do with some help, just provide it!

Nice idea, but it isn't policy and Northern would kick off big time if the delays mounted due to loading prams. You could be getting the ramp out at every station almost. That said, there is nothing to stop the guard offering a hand, obviously on a four car set he might not be where the pram is being loaded, but if he is, just get hold of the front and lift it on.

 

[robbeech]

A guard on a service from Meadowhall yesterday refused a wheelchair as they were running around 16L. There was another train directly behind (running around 10L) that i was to board and the guard was happy to help, it took no time at all and everyone was happy but it might have meant a missed connection for the passenger who had already been embarrassed.

Sadly, this behaviour happens, thankfully it’s VERY rare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A guard on a service from Meadowhall yesterday refused a wheelchair as they were running around 16L

Seriously?

That would be an open-and-shut legal case of failure to make reasonable adjustments (i.e. get the ramp out).

 

[Gems]

A guard on a service from Meadowhall yesterday refused a wheelchair as they were running around 16L. There was another train directly behind (running around 10L) that i was to board and the guard was happy to help, it took no time at all and everyone was happy but it might have meant a missed connection for the passenger who had already been embarrassed.

Sadly, this behaviour happens, thankfully it’s VERY rare.

So basically the guard on the first train was just lazy. That is the crux of the issue there and it had nothing to do with the train being 16 late.

I'll repeat it again. As a Northern guard it is simply not acceptable. How on earth can we go on strike saying it is to keep disabled access and then deny them it. Everything is undermined by these idiots, and idiots they are.

 

[robbeech]

It’s certainly disappointing.

I won’t mention which services they were but the first one would have connected into a London train (and would have been below the minimum connection time at Sheffield due to late running, but would have been cross platform) but the second service would have likely missed the connection. Of course I’m not suggesting they were going to London but I cannot say for sure they were not and neither could the guard.

 

[DanTrain]

It’s certainly disappointing.

I won’t mention which services they were but the first one would have connected into a London train (and would have been below the minimum connection time at Sheffield due to late running, but would have been cross platform) but the second service would have likely missed the connection. Of course I’m not suggesting they were going to London but I cannot say for sure they were not and neither could the guard.

Not only is it legally discriminatory, it’s also potentially very costly for Northern - if that passenger misses their connection, they then either have to put on the next train if possible or else they potentially need an expensive taxi ride, plus delay repay on top!

 

[robbeech]

Not only is it legally discriminatory, it’s also potentially very costly for Northern - if that passenger misses their connection, they then either have to put on the next train if possible or else they potentially need an expensive taxi ride, plus delay repay on top!

Doesn’t come out of the guards wages though so it’s no detriment to them. Especially if the train was already late enough to foul the minimum connection time.
I’m not suggesting they did it out of laziness. Perhaps they genuinely thought that them getting on the following service was better for them.

 

[muz379]

Some staff really do not help themselves , even if in doubt just offer the assistance .Rather that than waste all the time arguing then have a serious complaint made against you .

A guard on a service from Meadowhall yesterday refused a wheelchair as they were running around 16L. There was another train directly behind (running around 10L) that i was to board and the guard was happy to help, it took no time at all and everyone was happy but it might have meant a missed connection for the passenger who had already been embarrassed.

Sadly, this behaviour happens, thankfully it’s VERY rare.

Outrageous behaviour , sorry but when I arrive at a station and see a passenger in a wheelchair the last thing I think about is any delay that the service is either currently carrying or will incur as a result of providing the ramp . Its inconsequential

If you are already carrying a passenger in a wheelchair and arrive at a station with another passenger in a wheelchair and have no other safe space for the additional passenger to travel in then that is another matter altogether . But to refuse on the grounds of delay is unacceptable .

 

[robbeech]

Walking for the guards can be kept to a minimum now they are allowed to despatch from anywhere on the train so they can despatch from the middle after putting the ramp away.

 

[Wolfie]

Seriously?

That would be an open-and-shut legal case of failure to make reasonable adjustments (i.e. get the ramp out).

I can only hope that such litigation is forthcoming. The TOCs generally don't give a toss and deserve every kicking they can get.

Let me say this. As a Northern guard that story made me so angry. Anyone with half a brain could figure out it wasn't a pram and would be considerably heavier.

I totally despair of some staff, I really do.

You have gone quite a way to restore my faith in rail staff with that simple unconditional post, thank you.

So basically the guard on the first train was just lazy. That is the crux of the issue there and it had nothing to do with the train being 16 late.

I'll repeat it again. As a Northern guard it is simply not acceptable. How on earth can we go on strike saying it is to keep disabled access and then deny them it. Everything is undermined by these idiots, and idiots they are.

And in the event that said first guard is disciplined RMT would appear hypocritical in the extreme if they attempt to support his actions.

I would personally recommend them to pursue a legal case for discrimination, not just a customer services complaint. This kind of thing needs a very firm whack around the head for companies not taking it seriously enough, and you can be sure that given the nature of Arriva Northern's management that they will require said whack.

This needs a like button.

Edited to add: Thanks for the mod edit. I struggle to do multiple responses on my phone.

 

[bb21]

Some staff really do not help themselves , even if in doubt just offer the assistance .Rather that than waste all the time arguing then have a serious complaint made against you .

Outrageous behaviour , sorry but when I arrive at a station and see a passenger in a wheelchair the last thing I think about is any delay that the service is either currently carrying or will incur as a result of providing the ramp . Its inconsequential

If you are already carrying a passenger in a wheelchair and arrive at a station with another passenger in a wheelchair and have no other safe space for the additional passenger to travel in then that is another matter altogether . But to refuse on the grounds of delay is unacceptable .

Pretty much. I don't quite understand why any guard would refuse on the grounds of delay minutes. Overcrowding and resulting safety concerns I can understand, but not delays.

I wonder how the conversation went with the customer exactly, especially whether instructions were given by the guard refusing boarding or whether it was more a request/suggestion.

 

[Bungle965]

This reminds me of an incident at Manchester Piccadilly a few years ago now where a disabled passengers turned up a couple of minutes before departure and the guard refused to get the ramp out for him.
It was the last train of the day as well.....
That seemed to get a lot of news coverage.
Sam

 

[Wolfie]

This reminds me of an incident at Manchester Piccadilly a few years ago now where a disabled passengers turned up a couple of minutes before departure and the guard refused to get the ramp out for him.
It was the last train of the day as well.....
That seemed to get a lot of news coverage.
Sam

It should also have led to disciplinary action against the guard

 

[Intermodal]

Not only is it legally discriminatory, it’s also potentially very costly for Northern - if that passenger misses their connection, they then either have to put on the next train if possible or else they potentially need an expensive taxi ride, plus delay repay on top!

Whilst I agree the behaviour of not allowing a wheelchair on due to late running is absolutely disgusting and inexcusable it is incorrect that it will cost Northern more money. The delay minutes further incurred by the wheelchair boarding would exceed the cost of a taxi and delay repay in almost all cases.

 

[robbeech]

So there’s Financial incentive for this behaviour. Thankfully we don’t see this as the reasoning, more likely to be laziness. Also unacceptable of course.

 

[Intermodal]

So there’s Financial incentive for this behaviour. Thankfully we don’t see this as the reasoning, more likely to be laziness. Also unacceptable of course.

To be honest I really struggle with explaining the behaviour of this guard beyond the fact he is lazy and ableist. I think this is certainly an 'individual' issue, say what you like about the management of Northern but they are certainly not instructing guards to leave wheelchairs behind to make up time.

 

[robbeech]

To be honest I really struggle with explaining the behaviour of this guard beyond the fact he is lazy and ableist. I think this is certainly an 'individual' issue, say what you like about the management of Northern but they are certainly not instructing guards to leave wheelchairs behind to make up time.

Agreed. Though as a TOC they need to look at how things are perceived as much as how they really are.

If you say something that sounds like sh*t on television it’s as bad as saying it.

 

[LowLevel]

Two comments. Firstly it's not acceptable but...!

One - a focus on chasing delay minutes can provoke what we called when I worked in a different job 'perverse employee behaviours'. Basically you lose sight of the service/role you're meant to be providing for fear of the stick of something negative, whether it's rational or not.

If someone has recently been chased for delays they may attempt to avoid them no matter how illogical the reason for it (no one is ever going to be slated for losing time to assist a wheelchair user. It'll go no further than a quick call to control).

It's a well researched theory in target driven call centres - agents terminating calls early intentionally to drive down handling times logged by automated systems.

Two - notwithstanding the earlier 'but', it isn't acceptable either way.

This reminds me of an incident at Manchester Piccadilly a few years ago now where a disabled passengers turned up a couple of minutes before departure and the guard refused to get the ramp out for him.
It was the last train of the day as well.....
That seemed to get a lot of news coverage.
Sam

Was this the chap who had form for previously harassing the staff and demanding access to trains he knew full well they were barred from helping him to leave at his stop for safety reasons (IE Guide Bridge station where class 142s were barred from having the wheelchair ramps deployed) - he was asked to await the next 323 operated service for that reason but neglected to upload any mention of that. It all came out in the wash much later.

 

[Deafdoggie]

One - a focus on chasing delay minutes can provoke what we called when I worked in a different job 'perverse employee behaviours'. Basically you lose sight of the service/role you're meant to be providing for fear of the stick of something negative, whether it's rational or not.

If someone has recently been chased for delays they may attempt to avoid them no matter how illogical the reason for it (no one is ever going to be slated for losing time to assist a wheelchair user. It'll go no further than a quick call to control).

It's a well researched theory in target driven call centres - agents terminating calls early intentionally to drive down handling times logged by automated systems.

Exactly, some call centre agents are on great money...as they hit all the targets, but usually give the worst customer service because they are hitting the targets! This why you often get a call back these days (or texts) asking what you thought of the service, as those answers now form part of the targets.

 

[pemma]

Was this the chap who had form for previously harassing the staff and demanding access to trains he knew full well they were barred from helping him to leave at his stop for safety reasons (IE Guide Bridge station where class 142s were barred from having the wheelchair ramps deployed) - he was asked to await the next 323 operated service for that reason but neglected to upload any mention of that. It all came out in the wash much later.

Numerous different reasons were given as why the passenger couldn't board. One was what you say, another was the ramp was broken and another was the wheelchair user's toddler son was sat on his lap and the guard refused to get out the ramp for that reason. I'm not sure if the media report said he was going to Guide Bridge so the point about catching the next 323 due to 142 issues at Guide Bridge might have a presumption from another guard.

 

[Mogster]

I was at Salford Crescent stood near the family with the disabled child in the push chair.

When I arrived I could see there was some tension between the platform staff and the parents. I got the impression they had been unable to board a previous service and were very annoyed. The platform staff were trying to reassure them that they would be on the next service, it was a difficult situation as the platform was rammed with people and the usual peak time chaos was ensuing accross the Castlefield corridor... I couldn’t understand why they were requesting the ramp, the push chair was just a large pram and could easilly be lifted on. A passenger assisted one of the parents in lifting the pram with the child off the train at Wigan.

It was a difficult situation and from the bit I witnessed I had some sympathy with the platform staff and train crew.

 

[pemma]

I was at Salford Crescent stood near the family with the disabled child in the push chair.

When I arrived I could see there was some tension between the platform staff and the parents. I got the impression they had been unable to board a previous service and were very annoyed. The platform staff were trying to reassure them that they would be on the next service, it was a difficult situation as the platform was rammed with people and the usual peak time chaos was ensuing accross the Castlefield corridor... I couldn’t understand why they were requesting the ramp, the push chair was just a large pram and could easilly be lifted on. A passenger assisted one of the parents in lifting the pram with the child off the train at Wigan.

It was a difficult situation and from the bit I witnessed I had some sympathy with the platform staff and train crew.

Report says they had to alight the previous service which should have headed for Wigan due to it being terminated short.