Virgin Trains disabled assistance incident at Crewe

Darandio said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yes I think I have seen her become embroiled in issues with Northern, in which neither her nor the staff came across in a good light.

Bletchleyite said:

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.

Click to expand...

They would have probably boarded unnoticed, but if the TM had decided that she didn't want the customer on her train purely because of the previous incident then it is also possible she may have seen her if she had been able-bodied and made the same refusal of carriage.

But if the company has not banned her from travelling, and if that is the reason given by the TM, it would be a totally invalid one that would surely lead to disciplinary action; I do not see how a TM could decide to effectively ban someone from a train due to a previous complaint if the company did not impose any such ban.

Bletchleyite said:

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...

Click to expand...

Yes if the aim was to maximise exposure, then don't move away from the train, ensure a lengthy delay, keep arguing, don't compromise...

The truth is, confrontation on video like this is gold dust for her and her husband. More awareness on her various social media pages, more people attracted to the multiple crowdfunding pages they repeatedly have. You don't have to dig deep on the internet to find instances where people have been the victim of her chasing confrontation.

Darandio said:

The truth is, confrontation on video like this is gold dust for her and her husband. More awareness on her various social media pages, more people attracted to the multiple crowdfunding pages they repeatedly have. You don't have to dig deep on the internet to find instances where people have been the victim of her chasing confrontation.

Click to expand...

Confrontation which wouldn't have existed if they hadn't put junk in the wheelchair space and had allowed her to travel as she wished, which I can't see any good reason in this specific instance why she was not.

As for the filming side, if the TOC wishes to film me for evidence via CCTV, I wish to film them for evidence myself, too. It's only fair. (Though putting it on the public Internet is perhaps a bit different).

Bletchleyite said:

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.

Click to expand...

If you don't notice someone, you obviously can't act. To compare apples with apples, providing they had been noticed and they would be prevented travel in line with company policies regarding abuse of staff, then there is no discrimination. Just playing devils advocate here.

I agree this is a mess and it doesn't reflect well on either party.

To me the simplest, least confrontational solution would be to just let her on and then don't pass through that carriage unless you absolutely have to. If you did need to, then just have a fellow employee as a witness (on board catering staff).

Iskra said:

To me the simplest, least confrontational solution would be to just let her on and then don't pass through that carriage unless you absolutely have to. If you did need to, then just have a fellow employee as a witness (on board catering staff).

Click to expand...

She should absolutely have been allowed to travel. Being accompanied by another member of staff when dealing with her (e.g. the buffet steward) would seem a pragmatic solution, yes.

Darandio said:

The truth is, confrontation on video like this is gold dust for her and her husband. More awareness on her various social media pages, more people attracted to the multiple crowdfunding pages they repeatedly have. You don't have to dig deep on the internet to find instances where people have been the victim of her chasing confrontation.

Click to expand...

Yes true, I think she knew what she was doing. I am not aware of the other content but it would not surprise me at all.

Bletchleyite said:

As for the filming side, if the TOC wishes to film me for evidence via CCTV, I wish to film them for evidence myself, too. It's only fair.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that!

While it is true that TOCs wish to film people using CCTV or - in some cases - using cameras controlled by staff, if you were to insist on a reciprocal arrangement and gathered your own video evidence, it wouldn't be long before you were told you had to leave the train and/or denied travel and/or told to delete the video and/or have BTP called.

I found that a very difficult watch. I had to go away and come back numerous times.

The problem is that there appear to be some jumps (edits) and that the video starts part way through the incident. Prior to the start of the video, I'm really not sure what happened. Some comments suggest some foul play from the Train Manager (lying about the wheelchair space being occupied).

From the information available, I don't understand why she was originally refused travel.

After about 4 minutes, I find myself getting more and more frustrated with the passenger. She was offered both a taxi home and travel on the next train, but this was refused. I understand making a point for the utter shambles that is disability acceptance and treatment, but good grief this is not the way to do it.

At the end of the video, one of the platform staff starts "I've been speaking to the TM..." It would have been useful to know how that continued.

voyagerdude220 said:

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.

Click to expand...

As usual, we are seeing a selective recording - and without knowing what happened initially it’s impossible to pass judgement. Nonetheless, regardless of what happened initially, the woman doesn’t really present herself in a positive light.

I've not seen the video, so have no opinion whatever on the rights and wrongs, but have read all the comments and wonder just what it might contain, as its contents sound so different from one account to the other. Just like to make the point though, which I think important but others would no doubt disagree, that if neither side comes out of it well has to be put into the context of the TM not just being an individual but the representative of Virgin Trains, whereas the complainant represents no-one but herself.

Busaholic said:

I've not seen the video, so have no opinion whatever on the rights and wrongs, but have read all the comments and wonder just what it might contain, as its contents sound so different from one account to the other. Just like to make the point though, which I think important but others would no doubt disagree, that if neither side comes out of it well has to be put into the context of the TM not just being an individual but the representative of Virgin Trains, whereas the complainant represents no-one but herself.

Click to expand...

The clip shows little if anything of the TM. It all focuses on station staff attempting to resolve the situation, finding themselves very much caught in the middle by the looks of it. However, they could have perhaps been more assertive - we will attempt to resolve the immediate issue and provide you with the means to complain, however in the meantime this train needs to depart and if you don’t move then we will have no option but to involve the BTP.

If this individual is as problematic as made out here, why hasn't anyone applied for a banning order? Being abusive towards staff on several occasions, regardless of conditions, should be grounds enough to get one.

LOL The Irony said:

If this individual is as problematic as made out here, why hasn't anyone applied for a banning order? Being abusive towards staff on several occasions, regardless of conditions, should be grounds enough to get one.

Click to expand...

The problem isn't that she's proven to be abusive, but rather just an extremely difficult and histrionic individual who films all her encounters with staff.

You can't ban people because of their disability, and to do so to her would be sailing pretty close to the wind.

I think putting yourself in situations just to make a scene and record the aftermath so us internet folk can call the staff involved every name under the sun is pretty abusive. Also when did I mention or hint at getting that banning order because she's disabled?

LOL The Irony said:

I think putting yourself in situations just to make a scene and record the aftermath so us internet folk can call the staff involved every name under the sun is pretty abusive. Also when did I mention or hint at getting that banning order because she's disabled?

Click to expand...

You didn’t mention it but that is in effect what that would amount to. It’s not clear whether she “deliberately puts herself in these situations”, and it’s not fair to assume that.

What is clear is that she handles these situations very badly. Whether that is by accident or design is not for me to judge, but don’t expect to find much favour in court if you ban someone and they argue (quite reasonably) that their behaviour is the result of a pretty common disability.

LOL The Irony said:

I think putting yourself in situations just to make a scene and record the aftermath so us internet folk can call the staff involved every name under the sun is pretty abusive.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's really not, and suggesting that it is is grossly unhelpful.

She is a campaigner, and so she is going to campaign. But the TOCs and traincrews could make the issue go away immediately - by complying properly with the law, and stopping the management of disabled access to trains and buses being such an incompetent, inadequate mess. In this instance, the guard brought the issue on herself by refusing travel for as far as I can see no reason of safety whatsoever. Even if she feared for her own safety (which is ridiculous in the extreme - what was she going to do - head butt her in the thigh from her wheelchair?) the guard could have done what every guard does when there is a genuine threat and just stayed in the back cab.

A good first step would have been, before ordering the huge fleet of Class 800s, mandating level boarding for all new rolling stock to the standard UK height platform, and a programme of getting the platform heights standardised.

But even without that, the assistance system is an utter mess. I've lost count of the number of failures of it I've witnessed, and I don't even have a disability. That is utterly unacceptable - and until it is solved, she will continue to receive quite justified ammunition for her cause. Personally, I hope the TOCs are sued to kingdom come until they sort it out properly. And properly means zero failures - it is really not very hard to staff and manage it correctly, the TOCs just fail to make reasonable adjustments on a daily basis because they do it on the cheap.

FWIW, the key change that needs to be made, to me, is personal handoff. That is, when a person requiring assistance is loaded, the member of staff giving up responsibility to them must, in person, physically hand over to the person taking responsibility, and that responsibility CANNOT be given up without an in-person handover, even on a DOO train. So if the assistance fails to turn up at a station, the train stays there until it has, and the driver or guard who holds that responsibility needs to remain with the assistance booker until the handover has taken place. At every stage ONE named, specific member of staff is directly responsible for the individual(s) requiring assistance.

Anything less is unacceptable treatment of vulnerable people.

I’m all for equal rights, but it seems some people don’t want equal rights they want preferential treatment over others.

Start throwing words like discrimination, racism, homophobia about and your likely to get what you want as everyone is scared of being accessed of those, with the attached risk to further employment as management will 9 times out of 10 side with the complaint to virtual signal.

As always with those videos we only have 14 minutes of one side, after the initial interaction hasn’t taken place.

Maybe dad could have taken son to one side to calm him down, explain to the little lad who is probably scared his mum is upset why, not take up the cause with the TM and anyone else who has been unfortunate to be dragged into this.

Huge pinch of salt required.

AlterEgo said:

You didn’t mention it but that is in effect what that would amount to. It’s not clear whether she “deliberately puts herself in these situations”, and it’s not fair to assume that.

What is clear is that she handles these situations very badly. Whether that is by accident or design is not for me to judge, but don’t expect to find much favour in court if you ban someone and they argue (quite reasonably) that their behaviour is the result of a pretty common disability.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly echo your sentiments. The railway has to handle the general public in all their different guises, and some will always prove more problematic than others. Yes, if it was North Korean Railways, then passengers could be banned or, more likely, incarcerated, or worse. Staff should receive proper training in how to deal with these situations and receive backing from management if they remain professional, but not if they do not. Banning potential passengers on the grounds of behaviour, or what appears to have become the commonplace term 'attitude', is a dangerous path and not only probably illegal but impossible to sustain. If an individual does something that could be construed as contravening laws, or rules and regulations, then deal with it, but otherwise live and let live.

This specific incident wasn't really anything to do with her disability; it sounds like Train Manager refused to have the passenger on her train because of her behaviour towards her (and other staff) on a previous incident.

What is less clear is if it's within Virgin Trains' policy to give their Train Managers the power to ban passengers from trains they are running, due to previous incidents. It seems unlikely to me, but I don't know.

For sure the staff at the station were indicating very strongly that they believe the TM does have the power to refuse carriage to any person, but it is less clear if this would be officially sanctioned by the company.

If I was in a situation where I didn't want a particular customer to be on my train, I would seek the position of the company to pre-empt the situation and seek permission to deny them access to the train. If the company confirmed I could do this, I would seek advice about exactly how any such ban would be enforced. If the company refused, then I would have to accept that passenger on the train.

yorkie said:

This specific incident wasn't really anything to do with her disability; it sounds like Train Manager refused to have the passenger on her train because of her behaviour towards her (and other staff) on a previous incident.

What is less clear is if it's within Virgin Trains' policy to give their Train Managers the power to ban passengers from trains they are running, due to previous incidents. It seems unlikely to me, but I don't know.

For sure the staff at the station were indicating very strongly that they believe the TM does have the power to refuse carriage to any person, but it is less clear if this would be officially sanctioned by the company.

If I was in a situation where I didn't want a particular customer to be on my train, I would seek the position of the company to pre-empt the situation and seek permission to deny them access to the train. If the company confirmed I could do this, I would seek advice about exactly how any such ban would be enforced. If the company refused, then I would have to accept that passenger on the train.

Click to expand...

Do we know that her previous encounter with the TM *was* the reason for her being denied access to the train? Without seeing what happened before the filming started, we don’t really know what happened.

I know I’d be pretty peeved were I another passenger on the train and delayed by this.

bramling said:

I know I’d be pretty peeved were I another passenger on the train and delayed by this.

Click to expand...

VT and the guard, of course, know precisely how that delay could have been avoided, namely to get the ramp out and let her board.

Bletchleyite said:

VT and the guard, of course, know precisely how that delay could have been avoided, namely to get the ramp out and let her board.

Click to expand...

Still depends on what happened previously though, we haven’t heard anything from the TM as to why she couldn’t travel.

One way or other the staff shouldn’t have facilitated 15 minutes of footage. She should have been instructed to move in order to allow the train to safely depart, and if she failed to comply then the staff should have stepped back, called the BTP, then had no further interaction until BTP forced her to move. I remember doing something similar with someone refusing to use an escalator and refusing every other available alternative option which was provided - ended up having to be arrested, and was eventually taken on the escalator - in handcuffs.

yorkie said:

What is less clear is if it's within Virgin Trains' policy to give their Train Managers the power to ban passengers from trains they are running, due to previous incidents. It seems unlikely to me, but I don't know.

Click to expand...

I don't think any TOC will devolve the power to ban a customer to an individual member of front line staff - it's asking for all sorts of trouble, like the situation we see in the OP.

For sure the staff at the station were indicating very strongly that they believe the TM does have the power to refuse carriage to any person, but it is less clear if this would be officially sanctioned by the company.

Click to expand...

The TM, as you know, is a powerful being and nobody dares question what they do in the heat of the moment. This culture is understandable, as the TM is safety critical and as a person who may end up leading an evacuation their authority shouldn't be undermined without compelling cause.

As @Bletchleyite says, people have been called abusive before for simply standing their ground. I repeat that I find it difficult to believe that this woman would be genuinely abusive (as in, hurling insults). I find it more likely that there's been a heated argument in the past and the TM has not found a solution to the complainant's needs, which has ended with some sort of allegation - true or otherwise - against the TM, probably of discrimination or lying or whatever.

For the love of God just let her on the damn train. She's in a wheelchair. If she's so unpleasant then don't go into the carriage unless you have to, it's one stop. The station staff were dealing with two children here, it seems.

bramling said:

One way or other the staff shouldn’t have facilitated 15 minutes of footage. She should have been instructed to move in order to allow the train to safely depart, and if she failed to comply then the staff should have stepped back, called the BTP, then had no further interaction until BTP forced her to move.

Click to expand...

Yes, the 22 minute delay to this train was unacceptable, although the BTP had already been called before the video had even started.

yorkie said:

While it is true that TOCs wish to film people using CCTV or - in some cases - using cameras controlled by staff, if you were to insist on a reciprocal arrangement and gathered your own video evidence, it wouldn't be long before you were told you had to leave the train and/or denied travel and/or told to delete the video and/or have BTP called.

Click to expand...

Why? What offence have you committed?

AlterEgo said:

As @Bletchleyite says, people have been called abusive before for simply standing their ground. I repeat that I find it difficult to believe that this woman would be genuinely abusive (as in, hurling insults). I find it more likely that there's been a heated argument in the past and the TM has not found a solution to the complainant's needs, which has ended with some sort of allegation - true or otherwise - against the TM, probably of discrimination or lying or whatever.

Click to expand...

I would suspect so too, but this is categorically not abuse, and just as abuse (swearing at the member of staff rather than exasperation at the situation, personal insults, physical threats etc) should not be tolerated, staff calling this abuse because they can't be bothered with dealing with an assertive and upset complainant should not be tolerated either.

Even "this is effing unacceptable" is categorically NOT abuse, though as with a telephone call it is reason for the staff to refuse to do anything further on the situation until the complainant ceases swearing. Abuse would be something like "you are an effing idiot", or a threat or actual attack made of a physical nature. Noting that someone just being tall, loud and gruff is not an attack of a physical nature nor a threat thereof, though it may be a reason to bring over another member of staff (e.g. security/BTP) to ensure someone who could pose a physical threat due to their stature can be controlled if it does move that way.

It may be that there are cases, like this one, where the only way to break the impasse is to involve BTP. However, when they are called there should never be any implication of wrongdoing from staff to the passenger (false accusation, which is a very serious matter) - it should simply be stated that there is an impasse and attendance is needed to break this and allow the railway to continue operations safely while the complaint is moved to be dealt with elsewhere.

However, if the (hypothetical) guard knows they have broken the law...

AlterEgo said:

Yes, the 22 minute delay to this train was unacceptable, although the BTP had already been called before the video had even started.

Click to expand...

I think the 22 minute delay was essentially the time it took for the BTP to arrive. However, had she been allowed to travel there would not have been any delay.

The primary cause of every single one of her conflicts, however engineered they are, is either a faulty assistance procedure or an inadequately stated or patchily enforced and inconsistent national policy for carriage of specific items. If the TOCs did it properly, she would have no ammunition. But because access is treated as an irritation and not an important priority, she continues to receive ammunition for her cause.

As an able-bodied passenger it is easy to see just how bad the assistance service is by the number of failures I observe - and I won't even see all of them. The worst I saw was a stand-up argument between a DOO driver and a member of platform staff at London Bridge about who was going to load an "effing wheelchair" (not a person in one, as they put it, an item) while that person sat there and the train racked up delays, no doubt cringeing with embarrassment. Most cases are not like this and are just delays and incompetence. But it is simply not good enough and in my view is inadequate to class as a reasonable adjustment. I strongly support more cases against the TOCs until they learn that it isn't good enough and implement a proper system.

Actually, perhaps her campaign would go better if she moved to doing research and facilitating anyone who is legally wronged by the lack of reasonable adjustments made by TOCs to take legal action against them? If she could get that to happen for every single one rather than people putting up with it, she could make a real difference. As in rather than shouting "I'll sue you" - just quietly document evidence and actually do it.