BBC: Autistic Boy 'mocked' by Great Western Railway Staff at Paddington

[Wolfie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45952442

An autistic boy was "mocked" by Great Western Railway (GWR) staff at Paddington station, his mother claims.

Crime writer Sarah Hilary said two GWR help desk staff "jeered" at her and her 17-year-old son when she asked if they could be put on another train.

She was "humiliated" when staff accused her of "trying it on" and was "made to feel like a criminal", she said.

Apologising, GWR said it was "totally unacceptable" and that it had launched an investigation.

Ms Hilary, an award-winning crime writer who lives in Bath, made a formal complaint about what happened on Sunday evening...

If true, another Paddington staff horror story - what makes it worse is that the staff in question were working on the Customer Service desk...

 

[pt_mad]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45952442

If true, another Paddington staff horror story - what makes it worse is that the staff in question were working on the Customer Service desk...

Obviously doesn't look good on GWR there but could be more to it. Could they have been on advanced tickets and wanted to travel 2 hours earlier than their booked train without extra charge? Obviously that is no excuse whatsoever for being belittled, jeered or made fun of. Nothing excuses that under any circumstances.
However if it turned out the staff member was making only the point that advanced tickets are only valid on booked train, and/or the assistance couldn't be carried out on the earlier train for whatever reason and the passenger took that point personally then there could be much more to it? It would be a bad state of affairs if it turned out multiple staff on the desk jeered them

Rudeness is inexcusable either way though, as is discrimination, but an accusation doesn't always mean it happened like that. An incident such as one or multiple staff at a help desk jeering at a person with a disability you'd think would attract a lot of attention from bystanders at the time. Maybe it did who knows.

 

[John R]

If the mother’s story of events is accurate then clearly the way she was spoken to is completely unacceptable. End of story.

However, the more interesting question is should she have been allowed to break the conditions of the ticket and travel early? I’m inclined to say not, as there are lots of quieter places in the vicinity they could have waited, and she chose to turn up two hours early in the full knowledge that she would have to wait. If her son’s condition was known to be an issue with having to wait around then maybe a flexible ticket would have been more appropriate.

I’m sure others will have different views though!

 

[yorkie]

Obviously doesn't look good on GWR there but could be more to it. Could they have been on advanced tickets and wanted to travel 2 hours earlier than their booked train without extra charge? Obviously that is no excuse whatsoever for being belittled, jeered or made fun of. Nothing excuses that under any circumstances..

I think that is highly likely yes. Or, if not that, they had tickets for the first off train after the evening peak (which would vary depending on ticket(s) held) and wanted to travel 2 hours before the evening peak cut-off (for which an excess, priced at the difference in fares, would be chargeable).

GWR do not appear to be contesting the allegations the staff behaved inappropriately as they have refunded the tickets immediately. I guess the refund was prompt because the media got involved.

In contrast, several valid passengers have been refused carriage from Paddington on the customers' contracted trains, as shown on their itinerary or reservation coupons, and GWR staff at the gateline have on at least some occasions been found to be rude when denying legitimate contracted travel. In one case where I am aware of the outcome, it took about 4 months before GWR issued a refund and apology. But no refund was going to be forthcoming until the retailer got involved!

Several GWR gateline staff at Paddington are out of control, though I do know one on this forum who is a good person who would not sneer or wrongly deny legitimate travel. But there are many more I have encountered who act inappropriately. In fact, I once witnessed an incident in which they made a false allegation a passenger held a gun, as that was the only way to get London Underground to hold a train which a legitimate ticket holder had boarded.

They are not going to change their ways anytime soon, not even this media attention will change the rotten culture there.

 

[Wolfie]

Obviously doesn't look good on GWR there but could be more to it. Could they have been on advanced tickets and wanted to travel 2 hours earlier than their booked train without extra charge? Obviously that is no excuse whatsoever for being belittled, jeered or made fun of. Nothing excuses that under any circumstances.
However if it turned out the staff member was making only the point that advanced tickets are only valid on booked train, and/or the assistance couldn't be carried out on the earlier train for whatever reason and the passenger took that point personally then there could be much more to it? It could be a bad state of affairs if it turned out multiple staff on the desk jeered them

Rudeness is inexcusable either way though, as is discrimination, but an accusation doesn't always mean it happened like that.

I strongly suspect that they did have advanced tickets. Asking for discretion to change, explaining the circumstances, is fine. That doesn't of course mean that discretion can or will be exercised.
I was cautious to start with "if true"....

 

[jon0844]

I see Tanyalee Davis gets a link to her situation again.

 

[yorkie]

I strongly suspect that they did have advanced tickets. Asking for discretion to change, explaining the circumstances, is fine. That doesn't of course mean that discretion can or will be exercised.
I was cautious to start with "if true"....

No but they'd have to be professional about it. I, along with many others, have experienced very unprofessional behaviour at Paddington on numerous occasions.

If GWR were confident their staff were behaving correctly they'd not have issued a refund ; the refund isn't for any contractual breach (there are no allegations of that) but for behaviour of staff, which I know to be absolutely appalling in some cases, as I have witnessed it myself.

 

[tiptoptaff]

I think that is highly likely yes. Or, if not that, they had tickets for the first off train after the evening peak (which would vary depending on ticket(s) held) and wanted to travel 2 hours before the evening peak cut-off (for which an excess, priced at the difference in fares, would be chargeable).

GWR do not appear to be contesting the allegations the staff behaved inappropriately as they have refunded the tickets immediately. I guess the refund was prompt because the media got involved.

In contrast, several valid passengers have been refused carriage from Paddington on the customers' contracted trains, as shown on their itinerary or reservation coupons, and GWR staff at the gateline have on at least some occasions been found to be rude when denying legitimate contracted travel. In one case where I am aware of the outcome, it took about 4 months before GWR issued a refund and apology. But no refund was going to be forthcoming until the retailer got involved!

Several GWR gateline staff at Paddington are out of control, though I do know one on this forum who is a good person who would not sneer or wrongly deny legitimate travel. But there are many more I have encountered who act inappropriately. In fact, I once witnessed an incident in which they made a false allegation a passenger held a gun, as that was the only way to get London Underground to hold a train which a legitimate ticket holder had boarded.

They are not going to change their ways anytime soon, not even this media attention will change the rotten culture there.

They'd have done the same if completely untrue, don't want the bad PR for the company. Would rather make the staff look bad in the press.

Incident occurred on a Sunday according to the report, so no peak restrictions. Seems they were travelling on AP tickets and wanted early travel.

 

[pt_mad]

If the mother’s story of events is accurate then clearly the way she was spoken to is completely unacceptable. End of story.

However, the more interesting question is should she have been allowed to break the conditions of the ticket and travel early? I’m inclined to say not, as there are lots of quieter places in the vicinity they could have waited, and she chose to turn up two hours early in the full knowledge that she would have to wait. If her son’s condition was known to be an issue with having to wait around then maybe a flexible ticket would have been more appropriate.

I’m sure others will have different views though!

This may get to the heart of why the issue started. IF the customers had advanced tickets for a later service, or an off peak which wasn't valid until later, should the restrictions be waivered because of a disability? Or should the customers purchase a flexible ticket which suits their needs? Or could they argue that the only reason they have more complex ticketing needs, is because a customer in their party has a disability, and for them to be charged more because of this would be discrimination? A can of worms in itself and one which would be complex enough to have its own thread.

It may be the case that a revenue protection team would take a hard line, but an official policy one, which says buy the ticket that suits what you require. And buying an advance means no flexibility and booked trains only. It'd be enforced for pretty much everyone I'd imagine, all being treated equally.

 

[yorkie]

They'd have done the same if completely untrue, don't want the bad PR for the company. Would rather make the staff look bad in the press.

If they knew all their staff at Paddington behaved in a manner befitting of the role I very much doubt they would do that. Face it: GWR know they have a big problem at Paddington and that the customer is unlikely to be lying. The question is why do GWR never, ever actually do anything about the culture problem there? It's been a major problem for many years.

 

[Wolfie]

If the mother’s story of events is accurate then clearly the way she was spoken to is completely unacceptable. End of story.

However, the more interesting question is should she have been allowed to break the conditions of the ticket and travel early? I’m inclined to say not, as there are lots of quieter places in the vicinity they could have waited, and she chose to turn up two hours early in the full knowledge that she would have to wait. If her son’s condition was known to be an issue with having to wait around then maybe a flexible ticket would have been more appropriate.

I’m sure others will have different views though!

I wonder if allowing flexibility in applying ticket T&Cs would be deemed a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act?

I see pt_mad had similar thoughts...

 

[tiptoptaff]

If they knew all their staff at Paddington behaved in a manner befitting of the role I very much doubt they would do that. Face it: GWR know they have a big problem at Paddington and that the customer is unlikely to be lying. The question is why do GWR never, ever actually do anything about the culture problem there? It's been a major problem for many years.

They bent over backwards following the TLD incident - only for upon investigation it to be dropped by the company. Very quickly. As there was much more to it then she wanted us to believe.

I am not saying it is untrue, but merely the company's reaction isn't an indicator of such.

 

[Polarbear]

Based on the BBC story, I would say that the family appears to have been poorly treated by GWR staff. No one should be “jeered” at, or accused in any way of “pulling the other one”. They held valid tickets, so if it was the case that the family had advance tickets, then those do come with appropriate T&C’s.

On the other hand, it’s also difficult for any customer service staff to know exactly what disability anyone may have. Waving a disabled railcard under the nose of staff only proves that they have eligibility for that railcard-nothing more.

Obviously I wasn’t there so don’t know exactly what conversation actually took place. I understand that autistic people can & do become overwhelmed with certain situations & can understand why the parents thought the best option was to get the family home to a safe & familiar setting. That said, does that entitle the holders of fixed tickets to be able to change their plans at such short notice?

Strictly, the answer is probably no, but I do wonder whether those with certain disabilities could be given some way of being able to flag this where the need arises, so that customer service staff would be better informed & could properly accommodate this sort of situation?

 

[yorkie]

I wonder if allowing flexibility in applying ticket T&Cs would be deemed a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act?

If so, you'd effectively have to treat all 'Advance' tickets sold in conjunction with a Disabled Railcard as being valid 2 hours prior to the booked time.

They bent over backwards following the TLD incident - only for upon investigation it to be dropped by the company. Very quickly. As there was much more to it then she wanted us to believe.

I am not saying it is untrue, but merely the company's reaction isn't an indicator of such.

Glad to hear it as I felt a lot of sympathy for the TM in that situation and it was obvious she was misleading people. However, that case was really nothing to do with this one (other than the BBC wanting to remind people of it for whatever reason); my experience of GWR Train Managers is that they are far, far more likely to act correctly, appropriately, and pragmatically than the gateline staff at Paddington, which is where the company has a major problem.

 

[pt_mad]

I wonder if allowing flexibility in applying ticket T&Cs would be deemed a reasonable adjustment under the Equality Act?

I see pt_mad had similar thoughts...

Excellent question. Another point being are you treating the person with a disability unequally by not enforcing or by not keeping them to their restrictions and by just shrugging the restrictions off for the sheer reason that they have a disability? I.e. could it be 'positive discrimination'?

 

[yorkie]

...Strictly, the answer is probably no, but I do wonder whether those with certain disabilities could be given some way of being able to flag this where the need arises, so that customer service staff would be better informed & could properly accommodate this sort of situation?

in my experience if a reasonable member of the public made such a request with a reasonable member of staff (good luck at Paddington; there are some, but they're in a minority based on my experiences) then they would come to some agreement in these circumstances. The staff might want to point out which trains have spare seats and which don't, for example. If a customer wants to board an earlier train for which there are spare seats, then given the circumstances, it makes sense to get them on the move. On the other hand if it was explained politely that earlier trains were full then perhaps they'd drop their request. We will never know how reasonable the family were, but I do know that unreasonable staff are in abundance at Paddington and I know many others with unacceptable experiences.

 

[tiptoptaff]

The purpose of the Equality Act is to force adjustments to allow a disabled person or persons to have the same opportunities and treatment as able-bodied persons. I personally think that allowing a disabled railcard holder to circumvent ticket Ts+Cs gives than an advantage, rather than equality. Beyond the purpose of the act and as a result, discriminating against able-bodied people who must keep to their restrictions.

Can of worms indeed.....

 

[Wolfie]

If so, you'd effectively have to treat all 'Advance' tickets sold in conjunction with a Disabled Railcard as being valid 2 hours prior to the booked time.

Or indeed 2 hours after l guess (in case issues arise for them getting to the station). To be clear l was thinking not making a proposal...

 

[Esker-pades]

The purpose of the Equality Act is to force adjustments to allow a disabled person or persons to have the same opportunities and treatment as able-bodied persons. I personally think that allowing a disabled railcard holder to circumvent ticket Ts+Cs gives than an advantage, rather than equality. Beyond the purpose of the act and as a result, discriminating against able-bodied people who must keep to their restrictions.

Can of worms indeed.....

We don't yet know if this is the case. As with any event like this that gets media attention, the exact details are often hard to come by.

 

[bb21]

If they knew all their staff at Paddington behaved in a manner befitting of the role I very much doubt they would do that. Face it: GWR know they have a big problem at Paddington and that the customer is unlikely to be lying. The question is why do GWR never, ever actually do anything about the culture problem there? It's been a major problem for many years.

That's "damage limitation" for you.

There is no way for GWR to conduct a full investigation and reach a credible conclusion until a substantial period of time has passed, by which time most of the damage would have been done.

Issue an immediate full refund in these cases whoever is in the wrong, at all times. An allegation about discrimination against the disabled is highly damaging, and most of the general public aren't going to care who is in the right. The railway, or indeed, the powerful corporation, is always in the wrong.

The refund instantly pales into insignificance.

 

[pt_mad]

in my experience if a reasonable member of the public made such a request with a reasonable member of staff (good luck at Paddington; there are some, but they're in a minority based on my experiences) then they would come to some agreement in these circumstances. The staff might want to point out which trains have spare seats and which don't, for example. If a customer wants to board an earlier train for which there are spare seats, then given the circumstances, it makes sense to get them on the move. On the other hand if it was explained politely that earlier trains were full then perhaps they'd drop their request. We will never know how reasonable the family were, but I do know that unreasonable staff are in abundance at Paddington and I know many others with unacceptable experiences.

Looks like Yorkie has hit the nail on the head. Any decent member of staff would try their best to sort something out which suited all parties. That being said, if operational requirements made this difficult, and staff were busy and assists had already been allocated in the meantime and no staff were free, it may be beyond staff control. If there were disruption, this may prevent any flexibility at all, which is why the booking process is in place and is always advised.

Should imagine the first thing GWR would do is view CCTV and see how the staff's and customer's body language appeared, ask the parties involved what happened and go from there.

 

[pt_mad]

That's "damage limitation" for you.

There is no way for GWR to conduct a full investigation and reach a credible conclusion until a substantial period of time has passed, by which time most of the damage would have been done.

Issue an immediate full refund in these cases whoever is in the wrong, at all times. An allegation about discrimination against the disabled is highly damaging, and most of the general public aren't going to care who is in the right. The railway, or indeed, the powerful corporation, is always in the wrong.

The refund instantly pales into insignificance.

They may never reach a proper conclusion? If there were multiple staff and they back each other up and it's one word against another, or another two. Unless there were other witnesses. And it may be the staff wernt doing anything wrong and wernt rude, we just dont know? One thing is for sure, that when this kind of thing hits the media, there is usually a storm over it and staff are often judged guilty before anything is proven beyond doubt. It's just that easy for someone to go to the media and make these claims against anyone. Or to make accusations on Twitter or f-book with no hope of defence for the person on the other end.

 

[Cardiff123]

It's made very clear when buying Advance tickets that it's booked train only, no exceptions under any circumstances unless ticket restrictions are lifted or your train is cancelled.
However, couldn't staff have found a quiet space at Paddington for them to wait? The waiting room at Paddington was usually quiet but was unavailable when I was last there in the summer due to Crossrail works. Maybe they could have been allowed in the first class lounge?

 

[bb21]

They may never reach a proper conclusion?

Indeed, in some cases.

 

[pt_mad]

There have been occasions where I've been asked a request, and the person has introduced themselves as disabled, by their own choice and without me saying anything, and I've always leaned their way and accommodated them. One reason is because I understand having a disability can be difficult for many people and it's just a nice thing to do, to bend slightly where it's within your authority. E.g. if you're the train manager and you have the choice. Secondly, because I am aware that society in general expects us to look after those with disabilities and complex needs and to make things as easy as possible rather than being seen to hinder the person in any way publically. Imo trouble is better avoided where you have the authority and are within your remit to make both you and the customer happy and will make your life happier at work.

Much of the public don't understand the more complex ticketing rules of the railway and will have no sympathy for staff when stories come up of hard lines being taken with someone who has a disability. Rightly or wrongly the court of public opinion will often have its way and it's obvious which way makes life easier for staff.

 

[Coolzac]

There have been occasions where I've been asked a request, and the person has introduced themselves as disabled, by their own choice and without me saying anything, and I've always leaned their way and accommodated them. One reason is because I understand having a disability can be difficult for many people and it's just a nice thing to do, to bend slightly where it's within your authority. I.e. if you're the train manager and you have the choice. Secondly, because I am aware that society in general expects us to look after those with disabilities and complex needs and to make things as easy as possible rather than being seen to hinder the person in any way publically. Imo trouble is better avoided where you have the authority and are within your remit to make both you and the customer happy and have a good experience at work.

Exactly. In my line of work I encounter customers who are disabled (young and old) and generally you do make more of an effort to accommodate them if possible. Like others have said previously, if someone with a disability is asking for something beyond the validity of their ticket, if they can be accommodated without harming anyone else then it makes sense to do this. If it would, then you just have to politely decline. Most people would be happy for exceptions for disabled persons in reasonable circumstances I would think....

 

[Class 170101]

It's made very clear when buying Advance tickets that it's booked train only, no exceptions under any circumstances unless ticket restrictions are lifted or your train is cancelled.
However, couldn't staff have found a quiet space at Paddington for them to wait? The waiting room at Paddington was usually quiet but was unavailable when I was last there in the summer due to Crossrail works. Maybe they could have been allowed in the first class lounge?

I am not sure the 1st Class lounge would have been accepted by those who paid to use it sadly. However its a good idea.

In terms of ticket restrictions whilst I accept the point about booked train ONLY. unless restrictions are lifted or train cancelled etc, as a society we need to bear in mind that certain groups of people may need to change their plans more often than others so there needs to be a way of this being possible without needing to charge people a small fortune otherwise people will abandon the railway and return to the roads. This PR will do the railways no favours.

 

[Starmill]

Lots of conductors or train managers are perfectly happy, and perfectly permitted should they choose, to welcome customers to travel earlier than booked on their Advance tickets if their train has the capacity to do so and if they are asked politely. Lots of them understand legitimate reasons why this can happen e.g. very excessive cross-London connection times, and will help if they can. It's hardly something to be mocked for or something unreasonable or out of the ordinary.

If one has missed one's train and no relevant exception applies, then there is less to go on and less likelihood of being carried without further charge.

 

[Leisurefirst]

Paddington staff unprofessional...?!
Never!
A few years ago I had one in the (empty) advance ticket office tell me when I asked for some advance ticket availability/info but told him (to save wasting his time) it was just an enquiry at that stage and I wasn't going to buy a ticket right then I got the reply IIRC "I'm not going to help you if you're not buying anything" and he went back to reading his magazine.

 

[pt_mad]

I am not sure the 1st Class lounge would have been accepted by those who paid to use it sadly. However its a good idea.

In terms of ticket restrictions whilst I accept the point about booked train ONLY. unless restrictions are lifted or train cancelled etc, as a society we need to bear in mind that certain groups of people may need to change their plans more often than others so there needs to be a way of this being possible without needing to charge people a small fortune otherwise people will abandon the railway and return to the roads. This PR will do the railways no favours.

If they require flexibility, should they purchase a flexible ticket rather than an advance non flexible ticket though? And is requiring them to do this treating them differently due to a disability?

Lots of conductors or train managers are perfectly happy, and perfectly permitted should they choose, to welcome customers to travel earlier than booked on their Advance tickets if their train has the capacity to do so and if they are asked politely. Lots of them understand legitimate reasons why this can happen e.g. very excessive cross-London connection times, and will help if they can. It's hardly something to be mocked for or something unreasonable or out of the ordinary.

If one has missed one's train and no relevant exception applies, then there is less to go on and less likelihood of being carried without further charge.

Fact is though it's likely that Revenue Protection would hold them accountable to their ticket. Guard after guard gets asked all the time whether someone with an advance ticket for a later train can get this one. Some guards allow because it makes life easy, yet defeats the marketing strategy of the train company. Others take a hard line and always say no, which, technically is what they should do and what their TOC policy tells them to do and what really is needed for their company's revenue policy to succeed.