• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Virgin Trains disabled assistance incident at Crewe

Status
Not open for further replies.

voyagerdude220

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2005
Messages
3,264
Hi all,

I'm well aware there will be far more to this incident than just a simple conclusion to summarise what happened, however, I've come across a lengthy video online today filmed by "Agony Autie" in which she is apparently refused travel on a Virgin Trains service at Crewe, despite an unoccupied wheelchair space.

Annoyingly I can't seem to be able to post a link on this post to the video I'm referring to.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Qwerty133

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2012
Messages
2,453
Location
Leicester/Sheffield
The quicker TOCs see sense and ban this particular individual the better in all honesty as she seems to believe that the whole service should be adapted to suit her and only her. Probably should say that I haven't seen the latest video but IIRC its the same woman who purposely attempted to take a mobility scooter on a service she knew full well they weren't permitted on a then made a massive fuss about not being allowed travel.
That's not to say that TOCs behave acceptably towards disabled people because on a lot of occasions they simply do not but rather like all groups a minority of disabled people have a heightened sense of self-importance and are generally a nuisance to others. If this was a thread about the elderly lady in a wheelchair that EMT left next to a buffet on an HST the other day I'd be completely against the TOC.
 
Last edited:

voyagerdude220

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2005
Messages
3,264
I've not watched the entire video, but if she's indeed travelling in a wheelchair which isn't permitted to travel because of its type/size etc. I'd question why the other train companies she used to get to Crewe allowed her to travel.
 

Qwerty133

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2012
Messages
2,453
Location
Leicester/Sheffield
I've not watched the entire video, but if she's indeed travelling in a wheelchair which isn't permitted to travel because of its type/size etc. I'd question why the other train companies she used to get to Crewe allowed her to travel.
Some guards are scared of the possibility of complaints and break the rules to allow travel especially when management are often quite happy to criticise staff for following the rules that they set when it comes to wheelchair dimensions and the like. Alternatively different TOCs have different limits as to the size of wheelchairs that are permitted on their services.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
Some guards are scared of the possibility of complaints and break the rules to allow travel especially when management are often quite happy to criticise staff for following the rules that they set when it comes to wheelchair dimensions and the like. Alternatively different TOCs have different limits as to the size of wheelchairs that are permitted on their services.

Is it the lady who has Northern scared stiff so they let her travel regardless? I'm assuming she had to travel on Virgin today for whatever reason?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I’ve just watched a fair chunk of it and my impression is that on this occasion she is completely in the right and the guard is both out of order (acting vindictively, essentially) and in breach of disability legislation.

I’ve been accused by (airport) staff of being abusive when all I did was made an assertive but polite complaint. Fortunately in my case a manager overheard it all, told the member of staff to go into the back and dealt with my complaint properly.

I don’t normally agree with her, but in this instance I absolutely do.

And if it was indeed the case that there was TOC owned junk in the wheelchair space, someone should be disciplined for that. The space is for wheelchairs, not tea trolleys and bin bags.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I've not watched the entire video, but if she's indeed travelling in a wheelchair which isn't permitted to travel because of its type/size etc. I'd question why the other train companies she used to get to Crewe allowed her to travel.

I don’t believe she was in this case.

Interesting that BTP seemingly didn’t even speak to her.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
Interesting that BTP seemingly didn’t even speak to her.

There has been plenty of previous here.

It excuses nothing though and the fact that Northern have historically allowed travel despite publicly stating it shouldn't happen, then privately allowing it hasn't helped one bit. It's a mess of their own making, they have effectively thrown staff under the bus.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,035
Location
No longer here
I managed to find the video. It's quite a frustrating watch, with endless histrionics and weeping, as well as some very put-upon station staff. The TM doesn't make too much of an appearance, but more on her later:
A number of things spring to mind:

1) I've come across this woman before - likely on this site, from a previous incident?
2) It seems the only issue was that the TM was someone that "Agony Autie" complained about before and this is the reason she was denied travel. The TM seems to suggest that the complainant has been abusive to her in the past. In the video, the complainant asserts that the TM "was disciplined". I used to work for Virgin in their complaints team and can categorically say that at no point would the internal outcome or any disciplinary following any complaint be made known to a complainant. This does not happen.
3) The complainant is a very difficult and unpleasant person who cannot manage conflict. The complainant does literally nothing to assist in any de-escalation, becomes needlessly hysterical, etc etc. This is likely at least in part due to her autism.
4) I feel sorry for the station staff who were put in a very awkward position.
5) Regardless of whether the complainant is or is not a difficult person, I feel sure she has been treated less fairly than someone without a disability. None of us can say whether or not she has been abusive in the past. This notwithstanding, had she been able-bodied, she would have simply got on the train without fuss and the TM likely unaware of their presence.
6) I feel this incident raises issues surrounding the concept "it's the guard's train, whatever they say goes" - yes, but up to a point.
7) I don't get why the TM felt so unable to convey the complainant one stop to Chester, a journey of what, 20-25 minutes?
8) The whole situation seems to stem mostly from the TM exercising unnecessary power over the complainant, when it would seem easier to just let them travel.
9) I believe this is the train: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y81538/2019/05/17/advanced - it accrued a 22 minute delay at Crewe solely due to this incident, and ended 28 late at destination. That's disruption for hundreds of people on the train and failed PPM with associated performance penalty for the TOC.
10) The TM was allegedly calling the police on the complainant at the time the video was shot. It is not clear exactly why, but it cannot have been for something terribly serious as other staff intervened and treated her with quite a lot of respect given the circumstances.

The TM should have just let the complainant travel. Nobody comes out of this looking good, but I wouldn't like to be Virgin defending a discrimination claim here!
 
Last edited:

OwlMan

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2008
Messages
3,206
Location
Bedworth, Warwickshire
Nobody comes out of this looking good, but I wouldn't like to be Virgin defending a discrimination claim here!

As she was not refused travel because of her disability there is no discrimination.
The train manager can refuse travel for anyone they see as disruptive (disabled or not)
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
I managed to find the video. It's quite a frustrating watch, with endless histrionics and weeping, as well as some very put-upon station staff.
I agree with very nearly everything you said - an objective point of view :)

The only thing I don't like is people thinking they have one up over staff.
But I suppose it depends what the situation is.

If the staff member is in the wrong and you push them, they will simply dig their heels in more.
Making a song and dance about stuff only re-enforces the stereotypical view that some people have of some groups of people.

It baffles me as to why some complainers then seek out the person to seemingly twist the knife further.
To what gain? Satisfaction? And they expect to be met with a red carpet?

Let's face it, if she did say the TM has been disciplined before, either she's lying or Virgin have broken their own policy / the law in discussing the outcome of a complaint. It's all well and good reasing letters saying "may result in action" but that doesn't mean any has.

I used to write letters out to people saying something similar with no knowledge of what had happened between the staff member and their manager. But I can bet it wasn't anything more than a couple of words - "make sure she isn't in ear shot when you call her a fat old bat next time!"
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,035
Location
No longer here
As she was not refused travel because of her disability there is no discrimination.
The train manager can refuse travel for anyone they see as disruptive (disabled or not)

They have the power to refuse travel for anyone they see as disruptive, yes - but they may not legally refuse someone with autism who is having an autistic episode or meltdown unless they are being very abusive or presenting a safety risk. It doesn't appear from the video that either actually happened. If it did, then you can be sure it would have come up in the 14 minute exchange she had with the platform staff. The TM allegedly lied and said someone was in the wheelchair space, and then when the husband checked and saw it wasn't occupied, the TM just said "you're not coming on".

The complainant was refused travel apparently based on a past issue with this TM. We don't know the exact nature of it, but the complainant wasn't banned from Virgin, we can assume. She should have been allowed to travel.

This complainant has form - she is not pleasant or easy to deal with, I can sympathise with that. I would not want to spend a single minute around her. But I do find it hard to believe she would be actually abusive (it is possible, but from the evidence it seems unlikely).

To be clear, if you refuse someone travel based on the fact they're being bloody difficult and they have autism, you can expect to have some difficulties in defending a claim of discrimination.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,785
Location
West Riding
We only have one side of the story here.

Is it possible that the TM feels harassed/victimised by this individual?

Filming someone in their workplace and posting it all over the internet is an incredibly immature way of dealing with things, and I can understand how the TM may not that want happening to her again.

If she filmed but kept it private or between her and Virgin Trains management, that would be different.

I once had some absolute clown decide to film me in my workplace, while yelling at me at the same time. It didn't bother me because I didn't do anything wrong, but if they came back and did it again I would call the police.

Also, this lady is clearly angry. Her behaviour is erratic. It's not hard to imagine that she may become a risk to my safety. I wouldn't deal with this lady without a second employee present as a witness, to reduce the risk of violence or any further allegations being made against me. The lady may have the right to travel, but equally the TM has the right to feel safe in the work place. The VT staff say the lady has been abusive. The legal definition of assault in the UK is soft, but I can see how this lady could meet that definition; all you have to do it make someone feel intimidated. It would be very easy for the TM to claim that this was the case.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
They have the power to refuse travel for anyone they see as disruptive, yes - but they may not legally refuse someone with autism who is having an autistic episode or meltdown unless they are being very abusive or presenting a safety risk. It doesn't appear from the video that either actually happened. If it did, then you can be sure it would have come up in the 14 minute exchange she had with the platform staff. The TM allegedly lied and said someone was in the wheelchair space, and then when the husband checked and saw it wasn't occupied, the TM just said "you're not coming on"

And that lie itself was a clear-cut breach of the law in my book.

If the guard had said in the first instance that she was refusing because of a previous incident with that passenger meaning she did not feel safe, this might have been less of an issue.

The complainant was refused travel apparently based on a past issue with this TM. We don't know the exact nature of it, but the complainant wasn't banned from Virgin, we can assume. She should have been allowed to travel.

I would agree that banning a specific individual from travel on any given train, or from all travel with that TOC, is a management matter and not for individual traincrew. Guards' ability to "throw someone off" or refuse them travel can only sensibly be based on conduct in that specific instance, not on whether you like an individual or not, and certainly not based on a previous complaint.

To be clear, if you refuse someone travel based on the fact they're being bloody difficult and they have autism, you can expect to have some difficulties in defending a claim of discrimination.

And I would suspect that there is a fairly high chance that this guard will now be subject to disciplinary action, and VT probably to losing a legal case for failure to make reasonable adjustments[1], personally. Of course we will never find out what actually did happen to deal with it, quite rightly, for reasons of confidentiality.

[1] Putting bin bags, leaflets and drinks trolleys in the wheelchair area is in itself enough for sanctions to be applied, in my view. Lying that the area was occupied with wheelchairs when it was occupied by junk that should never be there makes it much more serious. Even if there are other issues, I would take the view that VT and the guard need to be sanctioned for simply allowing this to happen. The trolley goes in the galley or bike area if necessary, and as those trains are never full between Crewe and Chester just put the rest of the rubbish on a seat.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,432
Location
Yorkshire
At the start of the video, the member of staff offers her a taxi directly to her home address, but she refuses to take it and says that's not acceptable, because the journey is for her son who wants to go by train.

When the member of staff understands that the journey must be made by train, she offers to get her onto the next train but she refuses that.

She isn't nice to the member of staff who is very patient and nice to her; in fact that member of staff was exemplary in difficult circumstances.

She accuses the member of staff of accusing her of being abusive even though that member of staff is making no such allegation.

She says she is refused access to the train because she is autistic and because she made a complaint against the Train Manager on a previous journey, when she suffered a 'meltdown' and it has become a 'vendetta'.

She alleges that the Train Manager stated that a wheelchair user is using the space but the Train Manager is lying and that the area is being used for newspapers.

The staff are sympathetic to her and very apologetic and understanding and ask her to move to one side to discuss the matter and get her on the next train, but she refuses to move because she wants to go on "this train". Her close proximity to the train and refusal to move away causes further delay to the train, which no-one benefits from.

She should have taken the next train and written a complaint to Virgin that she was not allowed to take the first available train.

If there was no wheelchair user on the train, then it seems likely the TM was wrong to refuse let her travel. I know of people who have experienced Virgin TMs whose view is that "this is my train; my rules apply" and who have asked police to remove valid ticket holders, but there is not enough information to be certain that the TM was in the wrong, as the allegations would need to be investigated and we don't have their side of the story.

The staff at the station come across very well though I thought.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
At the start of the video, the member of staff offers her a taxi directly to her home address, but she refuses to take it and says that's not acceptable, because the journey is for her son who wants to go by train.

When the member of staff understands that the journey must be made by train, she offers to get her onto the next train but she refuses that.

She said her son wanted to go on a Voyager. This is not an entirely surprising thing for an autistic kid to want to do. I've certainly planned journeys so as to go on specific classes of train (or to avoid them). She has no less right to that than I do, the difference is that I can board myself and invite her to attempt to remove me if she wishes, which she'd be unlikely to do simply because she didn't like me.

She isn't nice to the member of staff who is very patient and nice to her; in fact that member of staff was exemplary in difficult circumstances.

The platform staff were very good, but I don't think she was "not nice" as such. She was quite assertive, but she was correct that she was being discriminated against, and therefore when coupled with her condition it is understandable that she was distressed.

She absolutely was not abusive at any point during the video (I have watched the whole thing now). Assertive and upset, but absolutely not abusive. Anyone who on the receiving end thought she was needs some training or a thicker skin.

She accuses the member of staff of accusing her of being abusive even though that member of staff is making no such allegation.

It is possible that that was said before the camera was started.

She says she is refused access to the train because she is autistic and because she made a complaint against the Train Manager on a previous journey and it has become a 'vendetta'.

It certainly is not unusual in any business for someone to refuse to serve someone who has made a successful complaint about them. This happens all the time in all industries, and it's really not OK.

She should have taken the next train and written a complaint to Virgin that she was not allowed to take the first available train.

This would probably have been the most pragmatic way to deal with it (then if the response wasn't successful go public with it including to the Press). The trouble is that when an autistic person has well-laid plans knackered (the failed lift earlier in her journey won't have helped) they do tend to get very stressed - and accommodating that is part of making "reasonable adjustments".

In a way I'm surprised the train wasn't cancelled there to avoid knock-on delay and get round the issue that way - I think it was a Chester terminator?

If there was no wheelchair user on the train, then it seems likely the TM was wrong to let her travel. I know of people who have experienced Virgin TMs whose view is that "this is my train; my rules apply" and who have asked police to remove valid ticket holders. There is not enough information to be certain that the TM was wrong, as the allegations would need to be investigated and we don't have their side of the story.

I assume you mean "not to let her travel". I would agree with this paragraph, though there doesn't seem to be much of a rational reason not to let her travel so it's hard to conclude that the reason was benign.

The Guard is in charge of the train, but that does not absolve them of the need to act both legally and within Company policy and other rules applying to them such as the NRCoT and the TSA.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,432
Location
Yorkshire
She said her son wanted to go on a Voyager. This is not an entirely surprising thing for an autistic kid to want to do.
I listened again, she says the train is for him but she doesn't specifically say he wants to travel on a Voyager.

She was offered a taxi many times before she says that it needs to be a train.
The platform staff were very good, but I don't think she was "not nice" as such. She was quite assertive, but she was correct that she was being discriminated against, and therefore when coupled with her condition it is understandable that she was distressed.
She refused to comply with their reasonable requests (she must know that she is delaying the train by not complying with their request to move away from the train) and kept asking them the same questions which they had already answered as best they could (given that they are not the people who are refusing her travel on that train).

The station staff are trying to help her but isn't letting them help her.
She absolutely was not abusive at any point during the video (I have watched the whole thing now). Assertive and upset, but absolutely not abusive. Anyone who on the receiving end thought she was needs some training or a thicker skin.
I'd agree she was not abusive.

In a way I'm surprised the train wasn't cancelled there to avoid knock-on delay and get round the issue that way - I think it was a Chester terminator?
It was a train to Bangor
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,785
Location
West Riding
Was the alleged abuse from the previous incident?

As she wasn't declined travel, just travel on that particular train, has she actually been wronged? She could have just taken the direct taxi or the next train and claimed delay repay?
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
She said her son wanted to go on a Voyager. This is not an entirely surprising thing for an autistic kid to want to do. I've certainly planned journeys so as to go on specific classes of train (or to avoid them).

I'm not sure this was planned, they had to take an alternative route due to a broken lift.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I listened again, she says the train is for him but she doesn't specifically say he wants to travel on a Voyager.

She definitely does but I recall it's only said once and is not very clear. A Voyager is definitely specifically mentioned at one point.

She was offered a taxi many times before she says that it needs to be a train.

Indeed. However, given how poorly wheelchairs are accommodated in taxis, I'm not surprised this was refused. And as the train was equipped to carry a wheelchair user, it was not a reasonable adjustment.

She refused to comply with their reasonable requests (she must know that she is delaying the train by not complying with their request to move away from the train) and kept asking them the same questions which they had already answered as best they could (given that they are not the people who are refusing her travel on that train).

That is a fair point (though when you're in a wheelchair you don't have much leverage, so you can't blame her for doing it in a way). However, one thing I thought was very poor was them saying she should move "because they wouldn't want the train to move with her too close to it". Dispatching a train with someone the wrong side of the yellow line would be a very serious matter and there was no way that was going to happen. Saying that was therefore not sensible.

The station staff are trying to help her but isn't letting them help her.

Yes and no. They were repeatedly proposing a solution which was not acceptable to her, because the two options offered would (a) have involved a road journey when a train journey has been paid for, or (b) would have resulted in an unnecessary delay of about half an hour.

VT must surely have a proper means of escalating such a dispute to management. If they don't have one (and the likes of the Euston barrier line might well indicate that they indeed don't) then they need one.

I'd agree she was not abusive.

Being assertive, loud or upset is not in any circumstances a reason to deny travel. Being abusive is. It's a very important difference indeed, and one which is so often not understood by customer service staff these days, typically the ones who really shouldn't be in the role and are not suitable for it.

I have, as I mentioned, come across staff who think being tall, bulky, slightly loud and having a fairly short anunciation is abusive, and it's really not. I can see why it might make some people feel intimidated, but if that on its own intimidates people they are unsuitable for a customer-facing role.

It was a train to Bangor

Ah.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Was the alleged abuse from the previous incident?

I believe so.

As she wasn't declined travel, just travel on that particular train, has she actually been wronged? She could have just taken the direct taxi or the next train and claimed delay repay?

Yes, she has been wronged. She had the right to use that train as an able-bodied person could have done. It is to me an absolutely clear breach of disability law - not actually dissimilar to TPE's rather poor proposals for the Scarborough LHCS that resulted in that being binned off.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,432
Location
Yorkshire
Was the alleged abuse from the previous incident?
Yes.
As she wasn't declined travel, just travel on that particular train
Correct; best thing to do would be to accept that (under duress) and complain.
has she actually been wronged?
If no appropriate reason was provided, then yes she has been.

She could have just taken the direct taxi or the next train and claimed delay repay?
It sounds like she was already delayed but yes my advice for anyone in this situation would be to take the next available train and write to the company asking for the matter to be investigated and seeking compensation for the inconvenience and delay.
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
7,785
Location
West Riding
I believe so.
Yes, she has been wronged. She had the right to use that train as an able-bodied person could have done. It is to me an absolutely clear breach of disability law - not actually dissimilar to TPE's rather poor proposals for the Scarborough LHCS that resulted in that being binned off.

But providing an 'abusive' abled bodied person would have been declined travel on that train too, there is no discrimination?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It sounds like she was already delayed but yes my advice for anyone in this situation would be to take the next available train and write to the company asking for the matter to be investigated and seeking compensation for the inconvenience and delay.

This is certainly the pragmatic line for an "average" passenger, just like "always accept a PF even if inappropriate and then appeal it". However, if you're a disability rights campaigner...
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
But providing an 'abusive' abled bodied person would have been declined travel on that train too, there is no discrimination?

Most likely, as someone else pointed out upthread, the able-bodied person would have boarded unnoticed and only have been seen once on the way to Chester. So there is a material practical difference in how they would have been dealt with, which is discrimination.

However, that aside, banning someone from a TOC's services for misconduct is a matter for management, not individual staff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top