Disabled passenger forced to take 'chaotic' detour at Bolton station

[Ianno87]

You might be interested to know that when the lifts on platforms 2 and 3 fail at Newport, all trains use 1 or 4 because they have level access to the street. It can cause significant delays. In that context, replatforming one or two trains at Bolton hardly seems like a big deal.

Bolton has a more frequent service than Newport, through the same number of through platforms.

 

[Ianno87]

What was failed to be disclosed in the article is that the writer is a BBC journalist who specialises in stories about disabilities (yes, he's more qualified). But it did set off my spidey sense as to whether there was a wider agenda here.

This sort of quote "He added: “I told the man three times that under the Equality Act 2010, the staff would have to get me a taxi to make reasonable adjustments for my journey. He said I would have to get the train to Wigan and then catch a train to Piccadilly.”" makes me wonder if he got people's backs up.

A more reasonable adjustment would be train to Wigan and just get the train to London from there...

 

[OneOffDave]

What was failed to be disclosed in the article is that the writer is a BBC journalist who specialises in stories about disabilities (yes, he's more qualified). But it did set off my spidey sense as to whether there was a wider agenda here.

This sort of quote "He added: “I told the man three times that under the Equality Act 2010, the staff would have to get me a taxi to make reasonable adjustments for my journey. He said I would have to get the train to Wigan and then catch a train to Piccadilly.”" makes me wonder if he got people's backs up.

And he spins it that he missed two trains back to London. There are loads of them. He's an hour late. I bet the rest of Northern's passengers would be pleased with that !

So he "got people's back up" by asking them to do what they are supposed to do. As usual when there's a disability story reported on here, it doesn't take long before the 'hidden agenda' and 'doing it for the publicity' remarks start appearing.

Three days last week and again today I had to get myself and my wheelchair off the train at Waterloo as their new "any free platform" approach means that you can end up on a different platform to the one booked which is where the assistance is waiting. I've had situations where because of lift failures I've had to go from MKC to Northampton and back again just to get out of the station. The round trip took an hour but the TOC wouldn't pay for the delay as none of the services involved were delayed. These sort of failures are really common for regular travellers who use wheelchairs. I average 1-2 a week out of 10 journeys. The only agenda we're pushing is for a public transport system that we can use reliably.

 

[Antman]

Yes, and that is the aim. But with respect, you cannot reasonably expect there NOT to be more issues in transporting such a small number of people versus the whole travelling public. I fully appreciate how lucky I am to not need a wheelchair to get about. And I also fully appreciate just how frustrating it can be to be left with more difficulty than you expect or have a right to expect. But you cannot expect the service to run for such a small minority. No matter how deserving. Surely that's reasonable.

I wholeheartedly agree that if there are platform changes, then something can and should be done at WAT (or elsewhere) to ensure the staff are aware of the changes - and given the tech, it seems bizarre it isn't. It doesn't take long at all to shift from platform to platform at Waterloo. I also think that it's wrong that the TOCs don't pay you delay repay. They should. If they've caused your delay. Who cares about the train itself.

It will be more difficult for you, as you do have a disability. And that's a large cross to bear and I have no doubt you, and all other wheelchair users would like to just get on with it and people make it easier for you to just do that, but sadly, the reality is that life isn't like that.

If the lifts are shot at Bolton, then there needs to be a solution. A quicker call out to repair. An alternative way. A taxi if there isn't one. From the story as printed, it seems he had a 45 minute delay. I think that's reasonable. But I wasn't there. Over the course of his entire journey, that's what, an hour lost over say, a four hour trip. And there are loads of trains from Piccadilly to Euston (if it was meeting a once a day train or similar, different story). The station staff didn't abandon him, they got him sorted in a way they understood could work and it got done. He didn't like the fact he was late and he publicised it - because that failure was down to a lift not working so he, as a disabled man, suffered a delay. I think that is entirely appropriate. But I also think that in this case, what Northern did was not unreasonable. It may not have been optimal for him. But it wasn't unreasonable. But I also can't see how, with the volume of wheelchair users versus the cost, doubling the number of lifts (to add in a contingency) would be commercially sensible.

I also didn't say he had a hidden agenda, I said there was a wider agenda. He's clearly doing it for the publicity, that is his agenda, he's a journalist who specialises in disability issues. And that's fine (well it's more than that, it's laudable, it's worth promoting big style), but I think he needs to say so. Don't you ? And I said "makes me wonder". We all face people in life who do that "I know my rights stuff" - and I am NOT saying he did that, I am saying I wonder if he did. And we treat people as we find them..... my day job gets me about two or three of those 'sorts' each week. And at the same time, about the same number of utterly frustrated people who come to me because they've exhausted other avenues and are genuinely reasonable. And don't give it the same. Guess who gets their stuff sorted first... and that may be colouring my cynicism. It's an odd phrase to stick in the article, unless he wants other people to pick up on it - and it's not likely to help - basically attempting to call the shots.... and the more that do it, the less effect (rightly or wrongly) it will have.

[I will always give the wheelchair user, old Doris, mum with pram, whatever a lift where I can. Christ, I walked some old dear's shopping home for her a couple of months ago....]

 

[ivanhoe]

In life, things happen that are outside the norm. Couple this with a decrease in staff available at Stations, and when such incidents do occur,it is usually either disabled or elderly passengers who require extra assistance at a time when staff are trying to make things work for the majority. You should be judged on how you react to these scenarios and I’m sure no matter how much training is available, the ability to ensure that all passengers are treated fairly is limited.
You learn from these situations but sometimes journalists can make a name for themselves by criticising the actions of rail staff.’ No paper refuses ink’ is the old saying, but if AT THE TIME Staff advised the said passenger, that the recommended course of action was A, then it is always easy after the event to state that the best course of action was B. As I’ve said, learn for best practise in the future.

 

[Howardh]

In life, things happen that are outside the norm. Couple this with a decrease in staff available at Stations, and when such incidents do occur,it is usually either disabled or elderly passengers who require extra assistance at a time when staff are trying to make things work for the majority. You should be judged on how you react to these scenarios and I’m sure no matter how much training is available, the ability to ensure that all passengers are treated fairly is limited.
You learn from these situations but sometimes journalists can make a name for themselves by criticising the actions of rail staff.’ No paper refuses ink’ is the old saying, but if AT THE TIME Staff advised the said passenger, that the recommended course of action was A, then it is always easy after the event to state that the best course of action was B. As I’ve said, learn for best practise in the future.

Got to feel sorry for the staff who have to make a quick decision in order not to delay the pax any further, and mechanical failure isn't their fault. In more than 24 hours a perfect solution can be found, but they probably had less than 24 minutes.
But if he was entitled to a taxi then that's what he should have had and the staff ought to have full knowledge of that. But I've no idea who is at my station who is directly a railway employee rather than someone contracted in, who could well be someone from an agency to stand at the gates.
At least he was at a staffed station and could get some kind of service, imagine being at an unstaffed station where the help phone's on the platform and he can't get to it? Are there any stations with lifts but are unstaffed??

 

[Mathew S]

But if he was entitled to a taxi then that's what he should have had and the staff ought to have full knowledge of that.

The problem with these situations is that it's really hard to know what someone is entitled to. The law says that the railway has to make "reasonable adjustments" and if staff and passenger disagree about what's reasonable then you have a problem. Unfortunately, in this context, what is reasonable usually ends up being defined by a court after something has gone badly wrong for someone.

 

[Ianno87]

The problem with these situations is that it's really hard to know what someone is entitled to. The law says that the railway has to make "reasonable adjustments" and if staff and passenger disagree about what's reasonable then you have a problem. Unfortunately, in this context, what is reasonable usually ends up being defined by a court after something has gone badly wrong for someone.

The problem as well is that other wheelchair users *will* accept an elongated train journey as reasonable, on the grounds that they paid to get a train, not a taxi.

One size does not fit all, and blaning staff is not entirely fair.

 

[tony_mac]

But if he was entitled to a taxi then that's what he should have had and the staff ought to have full knowledge of that.

Each situation is different - but Roads v Central trains http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1541.html seems relevant(ish).
The judges decided that an hour detour by train was not a reasonable adjustment, when a 1/2 mile taxi journey could have been arranged instead.

the policy of the Act ... is... "to provide access to a service as close as it is reasonably possible to get to the standard normally offered to the public at large". While, therefore, the Act does not require the court to make nice choices between comparably reasonable solutions, it makes comparison inescapable where a proffered solution is said not to be reasonable precisely because a better one, in terms of practicality or of the legislative policy, is available.

 

[Mathew S]

The problem as well is that other wheelchair users *will* accept an elongated train journey as reasonable, on the grounds that they paid to get a train, not a taxi.

One size does not fit all, and blaning staff is not entirely fair.

I didn't mean to blame the staff at all, sorry if that's how it came across. I agree with you completely that one person's reasonable can be another person's completely unreasonable and that is another layer of difficulty when these things inevitably happen.

Each situation is different - but Roads v Central trains http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/1541.html seems relevant(ish).
The judges decided that an hour detour by train was not a reasonable adjustment, when a 1/2 mile taxi journey could have been arranged instead.

Interesting nugget of case law, that. Thank you @tony_mac

--

Now that I've had time to read the article properly, I will add this: it concerns me that there is no response from Northern. It maybe that whomever wrote the story has tried hard to get a response from the Northern press office, but the phrase, "Northern Rail, which operates Bolton train station, has been contacted for comment," doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

 

[geoffk]

Platform 1 at Manchester Oxford Road, which has no lift, seems to be used more nowadays when trains are dislocated, and I've found five or six which called there today. This was partly due to a Barrow train occupying platform 2 for 40 minutes between 1550 and 1630. I assume a failed 195. In these circumstances what was the alternative? There could well have been passengers for these trains who required lift access.

 

[Mathew S]

I also didn't say he had a hidden agenda, I said there was a wider agenda. He's clearly doing it for the publicity, that is his agenda, he's a journalist who specialises in disability issues. And that's fine (well it's more than that, it's laudable, it's worth promoting big style), but I think he needs to say so. Don't you ? And I said "makes me wonder". We all face people in life who do that "I know my rights stuff" - and I am NOT saying he did that, I am saying I wonder if he did. And we treat people as we find them..... my day job gets me about two or three of those 'sorts' each week. And at the same time, about the same number of utterly frustrated people who come to me because they've exhausted other avenues and are genuinely reasonable. And don't give it the same. Guess who gets their stuff sorted first... and that may be colouring my cynicism. It's an odd phrase to stick in the article, unless he wants other people to pick up on it - and it's not likely to help - basically attempting to call the shots.... and the more that do it, the less effect (rightly or wrongly) it will have.

It's a fair criticism of the media - myself included - that people who are 'one of us', or family or friends, are more likely to get their story in the paper when newsworthy things happen. It is, of course, unfair. But, it's not going to change, because family, friends, and people we know are how we find out about stories in the first place. I don't know what you do for a day job, but if you do come into contact with a lot of these complaints, and there are people who would be happy to talk to a journalist, that's a conversation I'm happy to have privately.

 

[Antman]

Now that I've had time to read the article properly, I will add this: it concerns me that there is no response from Northern. It maybe that whomever wrote the story has tried hard to get a response from the Northern press office, but the phrase, "Northern Rail, which operates Bolton train station, has been contacted for comment," doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

I regularly get journalists on the phone for one of our high publicity businesses. “We have a story.its about x (in loose terms). Do you have any comment? It is going to press in two hours (usually 24 hours if TV)”

No time to respond. No chance to investigate. No chance to work out what actually may be fair criticism. So what do you do ? Put out an out of context comment. Which can be misconstrued. A pithy Comms soundbite. Or just let it be published whilst you get on with working out what happened.

I may be wrong. You may be right .... but three sides to stories usually. Sometimes more.
And it’s got worse as websites in particular demand traffic. And demand hits. And junior hacks working for free/peanuts trying to get the national press to pick it up. And get them out of Hicksville.

 

[Mathew S]

I regularly get journalists on the phone for one of our high publicity businesses. “We have a story.its about x (in loose terms). Do you have any comment? It is going to press in two hours (usually 24 hours if TV)”

No time to respond. No chance to investigate. No chance to work out what actually may be fair criticism. So what do you do ? Put out an out of context comment. Which can be misconstrued. A pithy Comms soundbite. Or just let it be published whilst you get on with working out what happened.

I may be wrong. You may be right .... but three sides to stories usually. Sometimes more.

In what way do you think I'm saying you're wrong?
(Other than to say that Ellis Palmer wrote that article, which he didn't.)

In certain cases, two hours (or even less) for right to reply is acceptable. Professionally, I can't comment any further than I have already on that aspect of this story.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Got to feel sorry for the staff who have to make a quick decision

With pre-booked assistance and a lift that's been bust for days, it's not exactly a last-minute thing is it? The reason why taxis aren't booked is because £££.

So he "got people's back up" by asking them to do what they are supposed to do. As usual when there's a disability story reported on here, it doesn't take long before the 'hidden agenda' and 'doing it for the publicity' remarks start appearing.

Quite. I think we got the full set off @Justapunter there. Whose name gives me a "spidey sense" something's "not right" (see, anyone can throw baseless assertions around.

An ex-colleague of mine on the board of a charity has this crap all the time when she travels. TOCs don't care because it costs them money to do it properly and there's little reputational damage for doing it badly because anyone who complains "has an agenda" and is "attention seeking".

 

[Sweetjesus]

Most major companies do have a reasonable adjustment plan for each scenario for services they offer and it's something they're supposed to do in the first place anyway, the keyword being anticipatory duty.

Railway companies who do not have a plan in place or have a designated person to handle the matters in case of elevator failures or any other type of failures that may affect disabled people is breaking the law and deserves to be fined.

 

[Foggycorner]

Both lifts at Bolton have been working since Thursday so storm in teacup over

 

[Mathew S]

Both lifts at Bolton have been working since Thursday so storm in teacup over

The issue isn't whether the lifts are working; it's how to deal with the (inevitable) occasions when they fail, causing problems for customers who are unable to access their planned journey.

 

[LowLevel]

Defective lifts can cause real problems - I've had to take passengers to Beeston instead of Nottingham for onward road transport before. This isn't helped by the industry deciding that contingency barrow crossings operated by trained staff in conjunction with the signalbox are absolutely lethal and it's preferable to ship people around by road instead.

I also had a recent case where the lifts failed at another station. In that case a driver and guard happened to be available to shunt a train with the passengers on to an accessible platform with minimal delay, luckily.

 

[muz379]

Should have been a taxi forward to pic and then on by train . But even then given the time difference between a train and a Taxi to Pic from Bolton unless a long connection time was the case at Pic the booked train might be missed .

Another solution at Bolton is for control and the signaller to be informed and for a Manchester Bound train to be brought in on platform 4 (if it comes in from the Lostock direction) . But again depending on what else is going on and with it being being peak time the signaller might decline .

Got to feel sorry for the staff who have to make a quick decision in order not to delay the pax any further, and mechanical failure isn't their fault. In more than 24 hours a perfect solution can be found, but they probably had less than 24 minutes.
But if he was entitled to a taxi then that's what he should have had and the staff ought to have full knowledge of that. But I've no idea who is at my station who is directly a railway employee rather than someone contracted in, who could well be someone from an agency to stand at the gates.
At least he was at a staffed station and could get some kind of service, imagine being at an unstaffed station where the help phone's on the platform and he can't get to it? Are there any stations with lifts but are unstaffed??

The problem I have witnessed sometimes is that the staff on the ground know the solution , and what the passenger is entitled to , but in many cases are not the ones actually responsible or authorised to book a taxi . Not my own TOC but another one I have witnessed is when a passenger in a WC was unable to board a service as the lift at the destination station was out of order , the station staff informed the passenger in the wheelchair of this and advised that as there was no other way to transport her to her destination by rail a taxi would be provided . I then witnessed the customer service assistant ring her TOC's road transport coordinator to arrange the taxi and have to argue at length the reasons why a Taxi was to be provided , in the end the customer service assistant ended up saying that if no taxi was booked she would pay for it herself and see her immediate line manger for reimbursement .

 

[Sweetjesus]

The problem I have witnessed sometimes is that the staff on the ground know the solution , and what the passenger is entitled to , but in many cases are not the ones actually responsible or authorised to book a taxi . Not my own TOC but another one I have witnessed is when a passenger in a WC was unable to board a service as the lift at the destination station was out of order , the station staff informed the passenger in the wheelchair of this and advised that as there was no other way to transport her to her destination by rail a taxi would be provided . I then witnessed the customer service assistant ring her TOC's road transport coordinator to arrange the taxi and have to argue at length the reasons why a Taxi was to be provided , in the end the customer service assistant ended up saying that if no taxi was booked she would pay for it herself and see her immediate line manger for reimbursement .

This problem isn't unique to railway industry. Other companies have this problem - manager/staff know what to do but isn't allowed to do so until their superiors allow it.

This is actually explicitly stated in Equality Act that acts of discrimination can include policy, criterion and/or practice - meaning companies don't have an excuse if their staff fail to accommodate a disabled person just because the staff needs to ask their manager for a permission which for whatever reason is, takes a long time or isn't possible at that time.

 

[Bromley boy]

This problem isn't unique to railway industry. Other companies have this problem - manager/staff know what to do but isn't allowed to do so until their superiors allow it.

This is actually explicitly stated in Equality Act that acts of discrimination can include policy, criterion and/or practice - meaning companies don't have an excuse if their staff fail to accommodate a disabled person just because the staff needs to ask their manager for a permission which for whatever reason is, takes a long time or isn't possible at that time.

That is true, but of course a key point to note here is that staff can never be expected to be personally left out of pocket due to a short fall in their TOC’s policies.

If staff pay for a taxi “off their own bat” without permission they might well never get the money back.

 

[Chris M]

That is true, but of course a key point to note here is that staff can never be expected to be personally left out of pocket due to a short fall in their TOC’s policies.

If staff pay for a taxi “off their own bat” without permission they might well never get the money back.

I would certainly hope that this is an issue that union representatives would see fit to deal with.

 

[Dr Hoo]

As has been hinted at above, this is something that will probably end up getting settled ‘in court’. Thinking back to my own time in station management with BR, ‘circulate via station X’ was a common practice for passengers with impaired mobility when rather fewer stations had level access to both platforms. Plenty of barrow crossings had been ripped out even in those days. Station X would often be one with an island platform and staffing - like Wigan Wallgate. We didn’t used to routinely engage taxis then.

I am fully aware that legal requirements and social expectations have moved on a long way since the dark days of Network South East and an ‘instant’, no-quibble, taxi to destination or another station en route may well now be the minimum ‘reasonable’ adjustment. In future duplicate lifts, standby generators, continuous staffing during traffic hours and so forth may be something that society and politicians come to support in service obligations too.

 

[OneOffDave]

Yes, and that is the aim. But with respect, you cannot reasonably expect there NOT to be more issues in transporting such a small number of people versus the whole travelling public. I fully appreciate how lucky I am to not need a wheelchair to get about. And I also fully appreciate just how frustrating it can be to be left with more difficulty than you expect or have a right to expect. But you cannot expect the service to run for such a small minority. No matter how deserving. Surely that's reasonable.

I wholeheartedly agree that if there are platform changes, then something can and should be done at WAT (or elsewhere) to ensure the staff are aware of the changes - and given the tech, it seems bizarre it isn't. It doesn't take long at all to shift from platform to platform at Waterloo. I also think that it's wrong that the TOCs don't pay you delay repay. They should. If they've caused your delay. Who cares about the train itself.

It will be more difficult for you, as you do have a disability. And that's a large cross to bear and I have no doubt you, and all other wheelchair users would like to just get on with it and people make it easier for you to just do that, but sadly, the reality is that life isn't like that.

If the lifts are shot at Bolton, then there needs to be a solution. A quicker call out to repair. An alternative way. A taxi if there isn't one. From the story as printed, it seems he had a 45 minute delay. I think that's reasonable. But I wasn't there. Over the course of his entire journey, that's what, an hour lost over say, a four hour trip. And there are loads of trains from Piccadilly to Euston (if it was meeting a once a day train or similar, different story). The station staff didn't abandon him, they got him sorted in a way they understood could work and it got done. He didn't like the fact he was late and he publicised it - because that failure was down to a lift not working so he, as a disabled man, suffered a delay. I think that is entirely appropriate. But I also think that in this case, what Northern did was not unreasonable. It may not have been optimal for him. But it wasn't unreasonable. But I also can't see how, with the volume of wheelchair users versus the cost, doubling the number of lifts (to add in a contingency) would be commercially sensible.

I also didn't say he had a hidden agenda, I said there was a wider agenda. He's clearly doing it for the publicity, that is his agenda, he's a journalist who specialises in disability issues. And that's fine (well it's more than that, it's laudable, it's worth promoting big style), but I think he needs to say so. Don't you ? And I said "makes me wonder". We all face people in life who do that "I know my rights stuff" - and I am NOT saying he did that, I am saying I wonder if he did. And we treat people as we find them..... my day job gets me about two or three of those 'sorts' each week. And at the same time, about the same number of utterly frustrated people who come to me because they've exhausted other avenues and are genuinely reasonable. And don't give it the same. Guess who gets their stuff sorted first... and that may be colouring my cynicism. It's an odd phrase to stick in the article, unless he wants other people to pick up on it - and it's not likely to help - basically attempting to call the shots.... and the more that do it, the less effect (rightly or wrongly) it will have.

[I will always give the wheelchair user, old Doris, mum with pram, whatever a lift where I can. Christ, I walked some old dear's shopping home for her a couple of months ago....]

So, we should just shut up and get on with it seems to be your message as we are 'too difficult' for TOCs to actually comply with laws that have been on the statue books since 1995. Any other laws that might be too difficult for them that we can condone TOC's ignoring?

As for "it's only an extra hour", that's 25% extra travelling time as a direct result of the choices that the the TOC and it's agents made. Just because they stayed with him, doesn't make it magically right. It's not like all the trains were screwed and loads of people were inconvenienced. You allege that he's clearly doing it for the publicity. Yes, of course, disabled people have nothing better to do with their lives than plan our travel from place to place so that it goes wrong and some random who doesn't know us can make all kinds of baseless accusations. This sort of thing isn't a rare occurrence, it happens all the time. We get left on trains, over carried, not put on trains, stranded at stations. In five years of daily commuting I've not had a week without some kind of assistance failure. I can't think of any industry where that kind of failure rate would be tolerated.

The only time things change is when people who do "know their rights" stand up and challenge organisations that fail to meet their statutory duty. This can happen by the internal complaints procedure (which rarely changes anything), getting the story out there or taking the organisation to court. This latter costs massive amounts of time, money and energy so it makes perfect sense that the other methods are preferable. How many people here have a few thousand lying around to take a case to court?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Situations like this are to an extent unavoidable (even very reliable lifts will break down in occasion) but how the TOC handles it can make all the difference. Once the passenger in question has been sent to Wigan to cross over, it's easy enough to then endorse their ticket to London and allow them to go direct from there. Why this wasn't done is another matter entirely, but the obvious parallel to draw is with the TPE Pretendolino debacle: had TPE's proposed mitigation for the inability to carry passengers in wheelchairs been simply to order them a taxi immediately, it would have had a negligible impact on their bottom line and would have avoided the PR disaster that ensued. Instead there was an arbitrary one hour wait before alternative transport was provided, which only served to put people's backs up for no good reason.