Disabled passenger left stranded at Liverpool Street

[VItraveller]

Wheelchair user missed train at Liverpool Street after staff 'refused to assist her'

Network Rail have apologised to Anna Landre following the incident

www.standard.co.uk

with the rise in compensation for these kinds of cases it does make me wonder how train companies will handle these situations moving forward.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wheelchair user missed train at Liverpool Street after staff 'refused to assist her'

Network Rail have apologised to Anna Landre following the incident

www.standard.co.uk

with the rise in compensation for these kinds of cases it does make me wonder how train companies will handle these situations moving forward.

It certainly needs to be better. The assistance service needs to be so good that activists have no material to use against the railway and there is no reason it could not be with a properly designed service. The service simply isn't good enough and as long as it isn't then these campaigns and legal action are totally appropriate.

And of course more level boarding! (Ironic that Greater Anglia has it but only on some of their trains, and ironically it has it on trains that carry guards and not on most DOO ones!)

 

[RailWonderer]

It certainly needs to be better. The assistance service needs to be so good that activists have no material to use against the railway and there is no reason it could not be with a properly designed service. The service simply isn't good enough and as long as it isn't then these campaigns and legal action are totally appropriate.

And of course more level boarding! (Ironic that Greater Anglia has it but only on some of their trains, and ironically it has it on trains that carry guards and not on most DOO ones!)

Liverpool St staff are not known for their helpfulness or politeness (though the rest of the GA network has excellent staff), so little suprise here. I raised my voice at a member of staff because we were under the tannoy which was loud and there was a crowd chattering and he accused me of raising my voice at him as a form of argument and it was just to make myself heard because I was asking when the next train would be and if taxis would be reimbursed. It's a mixture of lack of training, the people they are used to dealing with, and a general culture in a specific station or region that leads to his lack of concern for the passenger.

 

[styles]

Sounds like in this situation the station staff put too much emphasis on the passenger assist app. Yes it's great if people want to use it, but passengers should also be able to turn up at major interchange stations, in advance of their scheduled train departure, and be assisted. The staff evidently had time, as they found time to send a second colleague over. Passengers who are denied boarding for such a reason are understandably going to not be happy. Refusing them service for being rude, when it sounds like they merely explained the law, I feel is pretty poor.

Only one side of the story of course.

 

[43066]

Difficult to say who was in the right unless we were privy to the body cam footage. I’m not sure why the campaigner has felt the need to bring the gender of the first member of staff up, as it seems entirely her own assumption that the staff member treated her differently because she is a young female.

There was a fairly ugly scene on a train I was working a few weeks ago, where a wheelchair user wishing to join the train demanded another person be turfed off, because they had booked in advance. Resolved in the end by moving the first person to the non first class end of the train. It can be extremely difficult for staff to adjudicate in these situations.

That said I can completely understand why wheelchair users wish to “turn up and go” in the way able bodied travellers can.

 

[TUC]

Read the story, and also look at her account of events on X. She makes a big deal out of saying she had not booked assistance in advance.

Of course I want disabled people to be able to just turn up and be assisted, but she is complaining that she was told that people who had booked assistance were a higher priority. Of course they are. What does she expect? For someone who has booked assistance to be left waiting and miss their train because she expects to be a higher priority?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Read the story, and also look at her account of events on X. She makes a big deal out of saying she had not booked assistance in advance.

Of course I want disabled people to be able to just turn up and be assisted, but she is complaining that she was told that people who had booked assistance were a higher priority. Of course they are. What does she expect? For someone who has booked assistance to be left waiting and miss their train because she expects to be a higher priority?

I expect them to have sufficient staff to comply with legal precedent on the matter, which is that if a disabled passenger shows up and wishes to travel on a given service that they are able to do so on the same terms as an able bodied passenger.

Anything less is leaving the railway open to legal action which would be thoroughly deserved.

You might have a point if there was a whole coach load of wheelchair users showing up at once, all wanting a different train, but in practice this doesn't happen.

It would be easy to fix this for non-DOO trains by making the guard always responsible for the ramp and carrying it on the train, though I'm conscious that in this specific case it was probably a DOO train because guarded Greater Anglia trains are level boarding.

The railway provides all the ammunition these campaigners need by utterly failing to comply with the law. And it happens daily in multiple locations. I've seen it often enough (including a guard who was quite rude to me when I pointed out that he had a wheelchair passenger waiting while he had a chat with his mate) and it isn't good enough.

 

[dk1]

In my 21 years of driving trains into Liverpool Street it has always struck me how courteous and helpful the passenger assistant guys are at this station. Would be great if the full incident was caught on body-cam so we could hear/see.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my 21 years of driving trains into Liverpool Street it has always struck me how courteous and helpful the passenger assistant guys are at this station. Would be great if the full incident was caught on body-cam so we could hear/see.

It is possible she was very rude, but the situation shouldn't arise where she has any ammunition to use. The railway gets it badly wrong all the time. I've outlined before how the system could be properly fixed, but really the railway doesn't care about disabled passengers, it just sees them as a nuisance. If it did care, it'd fix it, such as not having ordered huge fleets of high floor* rolling stock (and continuing to do so) when level boarding products were already available.

* Not only high floor, but HIGHER floor - the step up to CAF Civity units is noticeably higher than 15x for instance. I see a lot of people struggling with it.

 

[43066]

I expect them to have sufficient staff to comply with legal precedent on the matter, which is that if a disabled passenger shows up and wishes to travel on a given service that they are able to do so on the same terms as an able bodied passenger.

This isn’t quite correct - the responsibility is to make reasonable adjustments. That should involve sufficient staff - absolutely - but not to the extent that disabled travellers can travel on exactly the same terms as the able bodied.

 

[styles]

Read the story, and also look at her account of events on X. She makes a big deal out of saying she had not booked assistance in advance.

Of course I want disabled people to be able to just turn up and be assisted, but she is complaining that she was told that people who had booked assistance were a higher priority. Of course they are. What does she expect? For someone who has booked assistance to be left waiting and miss their train because she expects to be a higher priority?

I'll caveat this with the same caveat I added to my other comment - we only have one side of the story.

But if her description of events is correct, she was informed she was not a priority, and was eventually refused boarding because the staff member considered her rude. She is right to challenge her denial of boarding on the basis she wasn't aggressive. A second staff member was brought along who also refused boarding based on the first hand account of the first staff member.

You would think that a conversation in this scenario would go a bit like, "Sure, I'll come back to sort the ramp for you in a minute. I just need to assist another passenger first who has booked passenger assist and is waiting for us.", followed by, "Sure, no worries, I'll be here!". Something somewhere has gone awry.

I agree with the passenger than asserting their rights should not be considered rude. I also agree with them that rudeness is not a reason to refuse ramp access. It is worth bearing in mind that the passenger assist at Liverpool St is delivered by Network Rail, who are not really in the position of refusing passengers boarding based on them being rude, as that's really an issue for the train operating company to consider (who, let's be honest, wouldn't want this negative media attention and probably would've boarded the passenger).

It's probably pretty telling that Network Rail have apologised multiple times for this event. I don't want to slate the staff or anything, but it sounds like Network Rail are admitting they should've done better and even that she should've been boarded.

I will also say though that customer-facing staff do need to deal with a certain level of dissatisfaction and even rudeness from customers. I would never advocate for people being violent or aggressive towards staff, but if your job involves refusing boarding to people, you must expect passengers being rude to you. If they're being a twonk, whatever, you report them to BTP and let them deal with it. If it's a disabled passenger unable to access services because of a staff decision, then I'm afraid that dealing with the verbal consequences is part of the job. If she was effing and blinding sure, but if she's just assertively stating the law, that's part of the job. We have to remember that for disabled passengers to be denied service (whether intentionally or accidentally) can be highly distressing. We cannot be surprised if those passengers aren't friendly with us. My mum was denied service as a wheelchair user 12 years ago, and it took her 11 years to pluck up the courage to take the train again, and that was only with me as a companion. The feeling of being deserted at a station has basically left her totally unconfident in using the railway as a solo disabled passenger, and I'll be honest, I'm not sure she'll ever get that confidence back.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll caveat this with the same caveat I added to my other comment - we only have one side of the story.

But if her description of events is correct, she was informed she was not a priority, and was eventually refused boarding because the staff member considered her rude. She is right to challenge her denial of boarding on the basis she wasn't aggressive. A second staff member was brought along who also refused boarding based on the first hand account of the first staff member.

It would also likely be the case that if her being in a wheelchair was used to deny her boarding (by refusing the ramp) where an able bodied person who just walked off would have been permitted to board and not pursued and removed, then discrimination would be taking place.

Some of these people do stray into "auditor" type territory (not saying she does, I wasn't there), but unlike most "auditors" the provision for wheelchair users on the railway needs "auditing" because it's woeful, so I hope they continue until such point as the railway stops giving them ammunition by failing on a repeated basis.

I will also say though that customer-facing staff do need to deal with a certain level of dissatisfaction and even rudeness from customers. I would never advocate for people being violent or aggressive towards staff, but if your job involves refusing boarding to people, you must expect passengers being rude to you. If they're being a twonk, whatever, you report them to BTP and let them deal with it. If it's a disabled passenger unable to access services because of a staff decision, then I'm afraid that dealing with the verbal consequences is part of the job. If she was effing and blinding sure, but if she's just assertively stating the law, that's part of the job.

Too many people in customer facing roles see an assertively made complaint (without swearing etc) as abuse. Those people aren't suitable for that job and should really go and find another. There is no law requiring a wronged customer, particularly not one who has discrimination law behind them, to be meek and soft-spoken, they are entitled to make their complaint in an assertive manner, just not to swear at people, spit at them or touch them in any way. None of which, from what is posted here, she did nor even came close to doing.

 

[styles]

It would also likely be the case that if her being in a wheelchair was used to deny her boarding (by refusing the ramp) where an able bodied person who just walked off would have been permitted to board and not pursued and removed, then discrimination would be taking place.

Some of these people do stray into "auditor" type territory (not saying she does, I wasn't there), but unlike most "auditors" the provision for wheelchair users on the railway needs "auditing" because it's woeful, so I hope they continue until such point as the railway stops giving them ammunition by failing on a repeated basis.



Too many people in customer facing roles see an assertively made complaint (without swearing etc) as abuse. Those people aren't suitable for that job and should really go and find another. There is no law requiring a wronged customer, particularly not one who has discrimination law behind them, to be meek and soft-spoken, they are entitled to make their complaint in an assertive manner, just not to swear at people, spit at them or touch them in any way. None of which, from what is posted here, she did nor even came close to doing.

100% agree.

And while I loathe modern day "auditors", that's because they generally just hang around private property and flying drones until they can film a confrontation. Disabled passengers filming their interactions, and in particular their service failures, I believe is true auditing with a genuine purpose of raising awareness of these poor standards with a view to get them improved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And while I loathe modern day "auditors", that's because they generally just hang around private property and flying drones until they can film a confrontation. Disabled passengers filming their interactions, and in particular their service failures, I believe is true auditing with a genuine purpose of raising awareness of these poor standards with a view to get them improved.

Totally agree. And the railway could make it stop by at least managing to get the quality of their experience to the same as able bodied passengers "enjoy", which is also what the law requires of them.

 

[EUC]

I found myself getting angrier and angrier when I read this poor woman's account of her treatment at Liverpool Street station. Just because someone is a wheelchair user, it doesn't mean they should be held to different standards, or have different expectations when they seek to use public transport. No, they have a clear legal expectation to have the same access as every rail passenger who doesn't have specific accessibility needs. And if they assertively state their rights and expectations, they most certainly should not be denied service because a staff member can't cope.
A wheelchair user is just as entitled to turn up and go as all other passengers, and they are not somehow lower in the pecking order than those who have prebooked assistance. It should make no difference whatsoever.
I hope Anna Landre sues Network Rail to oblivion for this. This is the only way the rail industry from the top to the bottom will ever learn that disability discrimination has severe consequences.

 

[aaronspence]

They are not somehow lower in the pecking order than those who have prebooked assistance. It should make no difference whatsoever.

In an ideal world with unlimited funds for staff absolutely, but theres only so many employed to set the ramps down, so you have to priortise somehow, the order they did it in this time seems to make the most sense. The only real way surely for the railway to understand the demand they have for assistance is to use the app and book it, then they can employ the correct amount of staff for the demand.

 

[EUC]

In an ideal world with unlimited funds for staff absolutely, but theres only so many employed to set the ramps down, so you have to priortise somehow, the order they did it in this time seems to make the most sense. The only real way surely for the railway to understand the demand they have for assistance is to use the app and book it, then they can employ the correct amount of staff for the demand.

But that is direct discrimination on the basis of disability. The standard of comparison here is a passenger who isn't using a wheelchair. Why does s/he not need to use the app to book assistance, whereas the passenger using a wheelchair does?
I don't agree that there has to be a priority hierarchy --- the train will just have to wait until everyone gets the assistance they need. (And if the train has to be delayed, then so be it.) Managing demand is the train company's problem, not the passenger's. The availability of staff to put ramps in place is the reasonable accommodation a passenger who uses a wheelchair needs in order to travel like everyone else.
This isn't an "ideal world" scenario. Anna Landre's money is the same as any other passenger's --- she has paid the same, and she therefore doesn't expect to face discrimination. We've had 30 years since the first Disability Discrimination Act was passed. You will remember that Section 46 provided for

(1) ... securing that it is possible—

(a)for disabled persons—

(i)to get on to and off regulated rail vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty;

(ii)to be carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort; and

(b)for disabled persons in wheelchairs—

(i)to get on to and off such vehicles in safety and without unreasonable difficulty while remaining in their wheelchairs, and

(ii)to be carried in such vehicles in safety and in reasonable comfort while remaining in their wheelchairs.

Is it unreasonable to expect that by 2025 someone no longer feels they have to grovel to get the rights the law has afforded them since 1995?

 

[aaronspence]

Is it unreasonable to expect that by 2025 someone no longer feels they have to grovel to get the rights the law has afforded them since 1995?

We only have one side of the story, but surely the expectation here is if she had a little more patience she would have gotten assisted, staff rushed off their feet im not sure having acts of law recicted to them will be of help.

 

[TUC]

I come from the perspective of wanting disabled people to be able to turn up and use a train as much as anyone else, but I do wonder if some of comments above saying of course it must be available are from the perspective of those who most often use major stations where the staffing levels are greater. They are the exception. For most people, their journeys are built around small and medium stations, and I can see that the challenges there are greater.

But that is direct discrimination on the basis of disability. The standard of comparison here is a passenger who isn't using a wheelchair. Why does s/he not need to use the app to book assistance, whereas the passenger using a wheelchair does?
I don't agree that there has to be a priority hierarchy --- the train will just have to wait until everyone gets the assistance they need. (And if the train has to be delayed, then so be it.) Managing demand is the train company's problem, not the passenger's. The availability of staff to put ramps in place is the reasonable accommodation a passenger who uses a wheelchair needs in order to travel like everyone else.
This isn't an "ideal world" scenario. Anna Landre's money is the same as any other passenger's --- she has paid the same, and she therefore doesn't expect to face discrimination. We've had 30 years since the first Disability Discrimination Act was passed. You will remember that Section 46 provided for

Is it unreasonable to expect that by 2025 someone no longer feels they have to grovel to get the rights the law has afforded them since 1995?

It is important to bear in mind that, whilst this case involved a wheelchair user, disability access needs are far broader than that. It is quite reasonable to expect, for example, that on-train staff should deploy a ramp where needed. However, for a visually impaired passenger, or one with learning disabilities, the need is more likely to involve being guided through the station, for which the presence of station staff is needed.

 

[Watershed]

We only have one side of the story, but surely the expectation here is if she had a little more patience she would have gotten assisted, staff rushed off their feet im not sure having acts of law recicted to them will be of help.

The article makes clear that a second member of staff refused her assistance later. Network Rail's regional director also apologised, which suggests they accept they were in the wrong.

 

[TUC]

Too many people in customer facing roles see an assertively made complaint (without swearing etc) as abuse. Those people aren't suitable for that job and should really go and find another. There is no law requiring a wronged customer, particularly not one who has discrimination law behind them, to be meek and soft-spoken, they are entitled to make their complaint in an assertive manner, just not to swear at people, spit at them or touch them in any way. None of which, from what is posted here, she did nor even came close to doing.

I agree with this. I used to be responsible for managing complaints panels in the NHS, and on several occasions staff would complain to me after the hearing that the patient's family had bern rude and I had not intervened. The problem was, what I saw was not rudeness, but a family member who was better informed and more articulate and assertive than the staff member.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yeah the accusation of her being rude really does rub me up the wrong way her. People, often women, who need to defend their rights and be assertive when faced with those being ignored are way too often labelled rude or mocked being a bitch or similar.

You see it with healthcare too where womens issues are far too often ignored or put down to stress or that time if the month etc.

Theres also a concerning rise in people complaining about disabled people on social media standing up for their rights or helping other disabled people do the same, especially around claiming benefits.

I come from the perspective of wanting disabled people to be able to turn up and use a train as much as anyone else, but I do wonder if some of comments above saying of course it must be available are from the perspective of those who most often use major stations where the staffing levels are greater. They are the exception. For most people, their journeys are built around small and medium stations, and I can see that the challenges there are  greater

And maybe if this incident involved one of those smaller stations your point may make sense. But it was London Liverpool Street. Of all stations, the London terminus stations should be the ones who have ample staff for this kind of thing. Getting it right there is vital if the smaller stations are going to have any chance!

 

[Broucek]

Top many people in customer facing roles see an assertively made complaint (without swearing etc) as abuse. Those people aren't suitable for that job and should really go and find another. There is no law requiring a wronged customer, particularly not one who has discrimination law behind them, to be meek and soft-spoken, they are entitled to make their complaint in an assertive manner, just not to swear at people, spit at them or touch them in any way. None of which, from what is posted here, she did nor even came close to doing.

Amen. Also, onaverage, people needing to speak to a member of staff are more likely to be stressed because something has gone wrong

 

[TravelDream]

A lot of supportive posts here. And I totally agree that too often the services provided to disabled people on the railway are woeful.
Disabled people should just be able to turn up and take a service in the same manner that a non-disabled person would.

However, there are always two sides to every story and this woman's account certainly leaves a lot of questions open about her behaviour.
I am pretty sure we would hear about it if disabled people were routinely denied service at Liverpool Street. We do not so clearly they do not do this.
And as she self-describes as an 'internationally-recognized disability justice activist', I think that tells most people what they need to know.

I also agree with them that rudeness is not a reason to refuse ramp access.

Couldn't disagree more.

Staff absolutely should have the right to refuse to serve anyone who is rude or abusive to them (and I agree the line between then can sometimes blur - what one person might call rude another might call abuse - and both might be right as we each have our own perspective). That should be unequivocal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Staff absolutely should have the right to refuse to serve anyone who is rude or abusive to them (and I agree the line between then can sometimes blur - what one person might call rude another might call abuse - and both might be right as we each have our own perspective). That should be unequivocal.

Abusive yes, e.g. swearing at them*, threatening them or getting personal e.g. calling them names.

Rude/blunt no. There is no requirement for people to be meek and deferential when they have been wronged; from the description here her anger appears to be totally justified. A blunt, assertive complaint is totally appropriate in a situation like this where not only has the customer been wronged but also the law potentially broken, and staff who can't take this are not suitable for a customer facing role. A good member of customer service staff is able to calm a situation like this down, not escalate it or refuse service.

Of course if a complaint is made politely it will often be resolved in a better way. However, that doesn't mean someone who is just blunt and assertive is not entitled to the letter of what the rules and the law say, which arguably was not delivered in this situation.

* To me, while I tend not to swear in public myself, there is a huge difference between "This is effing not good enough" and "You are an effing idiot". A well-trained, good quality member of customer service staff is easily able to identify the difference and act appropriately. One of them is a customer who has been wronged commenting on an unacceptable situation which needs defusing and resolving; the other is someone who is giving personal abuse and so needs escorting from the premises by security or referring to the BTP. A well-trained member of customer service staff is also able to identify a customer with a condition that may make them come across less polite than others (e.g. severe autism) and take that into account when considering what constitutes "abusive".

 

[TUC]

A lot of supportive posts here. And I totally agree that too often the services provided to disabled people on the railway are woeful.
Disabled people should just be able to turn up and take a service in the same manner that a non-disabled person would.

she self-describes as an 'internationally-recognized disability justice activist', I think that tells most people what they need to know

That is what comes across in her social media posts about the incident. She goes on and on, way beyond just saying how (rightly) she was unhappy about the situation. She comes across as having set the situation up in the hope of making a point. To be honest, the 'internationally recognised disability justice activist' are the types which make most disabled people cringe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is what comes across in her social media posts about the incident. She goes on and on, way beyond just saying how (rightly) she was unhappy about the situation. She comes across as having set the situation up in the hope of making a point. To be honest, the 'internationally recognised disability justice activist' are the types which make most disabled people cringe.

It is entirely in the railway/DfT's power to make it such that it is not possible, aside from in very severe disruption, to set up such situations. Perhaps they need to look at themselves first.

It is totally clear that the law sees it that disabled people should be able to travel on the exact same basis as able-bodied people. The railway needs to deliver that close to 100% of the time (i.e. such that the disabled person gets exactly the same level of service as an able bodied service - that service will never be perfect, but it should be the same). At present it is way off.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I am pretty sure we would hear about it if disabled people were routinely denied service at Liverpool Street. We do not so clearly they do not do this.

No instead we just hear about disabled people being failed all across the network instead!

And as she self-describes as an 'internationally-recognized disability justice activist', I think that tells most people what they need to know.

Yes - it tells you that disabled people are often failed and they often need to defend their rights they have to people who are often not interested and don't give a damn. The fact disabled people have to do this is not a reason to write them off like you are.

Staff absolutely should have the right to refuse to serve anyone who is rude or abusive to them (and I agree the line between then can sometimes blur - what one person might call rude another might call abuse - and both might be right as we each have our own perspective). That should be unequivocal.

There is nothing to suggest she was abusive her, and standing up for your rights, even if you cross into being rude, is not being abusive.

 

[TravelDream]

Abusive yes, e.g. swearing at them*, threatening them or getting personal e.g. calling them names.

Rude/blunt no.

* To me, while I tend not to swear in public myself, there is a huge difference between "This is effing not good enough" and "You are an effing idiot". A well-trained, good quality member of customer service staff is easily able to identify the difference and act appropriately. One of them is a customer who has been wronged commenting on an unacceptable situation which needs defusing and resolving; the other is someone who is giving personal abuse and so needs escorting from the premises by security or referring to the BTP. A well-trained member of customer service staff is also able to identify a customer with a condition that may make them come across less polite than others (e.g. severe autism) and take that into account when considering what constitutes "abusive".

As I said, I couldn't disagree more.
I don't work in a customer facing role, But I am very thankful that my employer has a zero tolerance policy and doesn't require our staff to deal with being swore at or being told that someone was just rude and they should deal with it.

Your comment about customer service staff identifying medical conditions is deeply wrong and quite offensive I'm afraid to say. Specialist doctors often struggle to identify them. Customer service staff certainly shouldn't be.

Plus the truth is that many customer facing roles are poorly paid and don't have a great deal of training involved. Why should they have to deal with this stuff?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Plus the truth is that many customer facing roles are poorly paid and don't have a great deal of training involved. Why should they have to deal with this stuff?

Because it is their job. Taking the job is not compulsory; if the money is insufficient, pick another job. Their job is to deal with unhappy customers and make them happy. Unhappy customers will act unhappy.

I did specifically say that swearing at somebody is unacceptable. But being blunt and assertive is par for the course. If a customer has paid for a service and not received it, they have every right to act in a manner accordant with being dissatisfied.