Disabled passenger left stranded at Liverpool Street

[AlterEgo]

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 think the point is that passengers turning up on the day should have equal access. Having to book in advance to ensure you can access a service isn’t equal treatment.

As an aside - and this isn’t aimed at you - the passenger in the example here is someone I know and the accusations she is or was rude, I don’t recognise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your comment about customer service staff identifying medical conditions is deeply wrong and quite offensive I'm afraid to say.

It is absolutely not offensive to suggest customer service staff need to read the situation and act accordingly. If they can't do that on a basic level they are unfit for the role.

 

[godfreycomplex]

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.

Not if that manner is abusive (defined as intended or likely to cause harassement, alarm and distress) as defined by the Public Order Act 1986. And you’ll find that’s a pretty broad definition.

 

[AlterEgo]

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,

That's terrible, actually. This passenger is in a wheelchair and needs the assistance to access the service. It is their legal right, not some sort of optional extra given on the grounds of "being patient". I am able to physically access the train whether I am patient or impatient. If a wheelchair user has to grovel or be especially nice to get their assistance, they are being discriminated against.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's terrible, actually. This passenger is in a wheelchair and needs the assistance to access the service. It is their legal right, not some sort of optional extra given on the grounds of "being patient". I am able to physically access the train whether I am patient or impatient. If a wheelchair user has to grovel or be especially nice to get their assistance, they are being discriminated against.

Exactly. And if she was refused in circumstances an able bodied person would not be (i.e. they wouldn't pursue and remove an able bodied person who went on to board the train having spoken in the same way to the same member of staff, or at least attempt it by way of holding the train and calling BTP, say) then that on its own is discrimination. It would be illegal to refuse a disabled passenger simply because it is easier to do so than an able bodied one.

 

[BlueLeanie]

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

In that case the employer must make it absolutely clear to the staff that they must serve rude customers.

Likewise, they must make it clear to customers that being rude is acceptable behaviour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not if that manner is abusive (defined as intended or likely to cause harassement, alarm and distress) as defined by the Public Order Act 1986. And you’ll find that’s a pretty broad definition.

I think, much as two wrongs don't make a right, the railway relying on technical legal definitions of conduct would be a bit rich when they themselves are also very clearly acting unlawfully.

 

[AlterEgo]

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?

Why should they have to deal with a disabled person bluntly explaining discrimination law and how they are not getting their legally entitled access to the train service?

Because it's their job. That's part of the territory.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In that case the employer must make it absolutely clear to the staff that they must serve rude customers.

Likewise, they must make it clear to customers that being rude is acceptable behaviour.

I would certainly expect it to be part of the training of any member of staff responsible for customer services that a core element of their job is to take unhappy customers and make them delighted*. That's the approach any good business takes. Though the railway so often is not a good business.

There are limits, of course, but that is the absolute core of any customer service role.

* Or at least to get them on side as to why they can't have what they want, e.g a flight that day if there isn't one and theirs was cancelled. However that doesn't apply here - it's clear what their legal entitlement is and the railway cannot offer less than that or it is breaking the law.

Why should they have to deal with a disabled person bluntly explaining discrimination law and how they are not getting their legally entitled access to the train service?

Because it's their job. That's part of the territory.

Precisely.

 

[TravelDream]

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.

You obviously come from quite a different place to me and many others, and it's quite sad that you can't see things from the perspective of people who don't inhabit a place of such privilege.
I don't mean to pick on you as I am sure many have the same viewpoint, but many people simply have little choice on what job they can get/take and live from paycheck to paycheck.
I grew up in poverty and have myself done jobs I've hated to simply get by.

In my view, swearing at all is unacceptable. If someone in a work context swears in conversation with me or a colleague, even 'this is f'in ridiculous', that's it. Interaction over. Even 'bluntly explaining' would likely lead to that dependent on context. And, anyway, what are the frontline staff supposed to do - magic someone up?

Yes, she should have been able to turn up and get service immediately. But the railway is often incapable of that. It's not the frontline staff's fault. They shouldn't be abused in such a manner because of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, she should have been able to turn up and get service immediately. But the railway is often incapable of that. It's not the frontline staff's fault.

They are its representative and are expected to deal with the consequences of such failures. That is how customer facing roles work. It sounds to me like that sort of role is perhaps not for you.

They shouldn't be abused in such a manner because of it.

I've said many times that abuse isn't acceptable. However, there is no requirement to be polite, meek and deferential; they are angry because they have been wronged by a company that is acting unlawfully and have every right to be angry, upset and assertive about that.

 

[AlterEgo]

I grew up in poverty and have myself done jobs I've hated to simply get by.

We can both play at that game. I’ve picked up human faeces with my hands for money. I don’t think having done rubbish jobs qualifies me in any way more than anyone else though.

In my view, swearing at all is unacceptable. If someone in a work context swears in conversation with me or a colleague, even 'this is f'in ridiculous', that's it. Interaction over. Even 'bluntly explaining' would likely lead to that dependent on context.

If your job is to assist disabled passengers onto a train, so they can access the service, then that’s what you have to do. If, say, I had a disagreement with a member of staff, and was blunt, or assertive, or had a “for god’s sake” moment…I would still be able to access the train service. I wouldn’t be thrown off the train. I would simply walk on and off it.

If the railway refuses the access to a disabled person under those circumstances but not an able bodied person, it is discriminating against the disabled person.

And, anyway, what are the frontline staff supposed to do - magic someone up?

No, they’re supposed to apologise on behalf of the company which has failed the passenger, and try to manage the situation. That’s what they’re trained to do and that’s one of the skills the company will recruit for - the ability to handle difficult situations with disappointed customers, often with complex additional needs which need meeting by law.

I’ve booked loads of passenger assistance for people and had to manage all sorts of disappointment and dismay, as well as my fair share of customers who were abrupt or rude. That’s part and parcel of the job. (I enjoyed that job btw)

Yes, she should have been able to turn up and get service immediately. But the railway is often incapable of that. It's not the frontline staff's fault. They shouldn't be abused in such a manner because of it.

Nobody has said they were abused, or that they should have been.

 

[Starmill]

* 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.

The step into an 800 is enormous. Similar units are still being produced...

It's such an embarrassment that LNER even - shamefully - put out a video compiling several incidents where people had tripped or slipped on the massive vertical gap. Of course, the vertical gap is smaller at the wheelchair spaces, but most people aren't wheelchair users, so that information won't seem relevant to them at all, as there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to inform anyone that the step is more manageable at those end doors.

 

[aaronspence]

That's terrible, actually. This passenger is in a wheelchair and needs the assistance to access the service. It is their legal right, not some sort of optional extra given on the grounds of "being patient". I am able to physically access the train whether I am patient or impatient. If a wheelchair user has to grovel or be especially nice to get their assistance, they are being discriminated against.

For all we know they were politely told to just wait 5 minutes as they were dealing with other people, we all have to queue for things in life, its called being a grown up and just dealing with it.

 

[Starmill]

And, anyway, what are the frontline staff supposed to do - magic someone up?

It's rather rare for two trains to be leaving within 1-3 minutes of one another, both with a customer to assist, both of whom arrived at the station immediately before the booked departure time, and there to only be one single person allocated to that part of the station, with no colleague available to step in for an assist from another part of the station. In the very rare event this happened I would expect the customer on the first departure to receive assistance first and the second departure to arrange to be held for up to 5 minutes while the second assist takes place. But that event would be so rare it's hard to believe it actually happened.

It's plain as day it's unlawful to deny travel for this reason. If a member of staff does something in accordance with the instructions of their manager which breaks the law in this way, I would suggest they were to refuse in future to follow the instructions and speak to their trade union representative, contact their confidential safety reporting hotline or whistleblowing service such as Safecall.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For all we know they were politely told to just wait 5 minutes as they were dealing with other people, we all have to queue for things in life, its called being a grown up and just dealing with it.

It very much depends how that is put. If it's put with reassurance that the passenger will still be able to get on the train they wish (the departure of that train being delayed until it can be done), and apologetically, then that's probably the best that can be done. But if it's "you'll have to wait" then that's not good enough.

 

[Horizon22]

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.

The issue is what is “sufficient”? There may be very rare occasions whereby completely independently, multiple passenger assists need to be done at the same time and staffing for that occurrence is just not reasonably practical.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The step into an 800 is enormous. Similar units are still being produced...

It's such an embarrassment that LNER even - shamefully - put out a video compiling several incidents where people had tripped or slipped on the massive vertical gap. Of course, the vertical gap is smaller at the wheelchair spaces, but most people aren't wheelchair users, so that information won't seem relevant to them at all, as there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to inform anyone that the step is more manageable at those end doors.

And I'd say 80x are better in this regard than the Civities - at least like Pacers it's a defined, wide step up. The Civities just have a footboard at door level and a massive step up from most platforms, pretty much every time I use one I see people struggling with it.

 

[Starmill]

The issue is what is “sufficient”? There may be very rare occasions whereby completely independently, multiple passenger assists need to be done at the same time and staffing for that occurrence is just not reasonably practical.

In such rare, exceptional cases, the train would simply wait a few minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue is what is “sufficient”? There may be very rare occasions whereby completely independently, multiple passenger assists need to be done at the same time and staffing for that occurrence is just not reasonably practical.

I doubt a coachload of wheelchair passengers arrived at once. A major London terminal should have enough trained staff to cope with several at once even if it involves taking them from other duties, such as having some gateline staff dual skilled - you can always open the gateline and have them step in to do it, because revenue is definitely not more important than complying with equality law.

Though it remains my view that on a guarded train or one with an OBS or similar it should be the guard that does it with the ramp stored on the train, which entirely avoids the problem as there are then enough trained staff to load a wheelchair onto all the trains in the station at once if needs be. Of course I refer back to the irony that Greater Anglia's guarded trains are level boarding and their DOO ones are not.

 

[aaronspence]

It very much depends how that is put. If it's put with reassurance that the passenger will still be able to get on the train they wish (the departure of that train being delayed until it can be done), and apologetically, then that's probably the best that can be done. But if it's "you'll have to wait" then that's not good enough.

I agree there for sure, otherwise you will indeed have the anxious thought of, is this train going to leave without me.

 

[saismee]

* 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.

Slight correction, the Greater Anglia units are Alstom Aventras, not CAF Civity. I'm not sure if the Aventras have higher floors as well, but it's certainly an unfortunate provision. I'd assume that no company was able to deliver such a huge quantity of low-floor units, so a more standard and mass-producible design was the only option here.

Edit: I now understand you mean the railway as a whole. Whoops. My point about the quantity still stands though.

 

[maniacmartin]

We obviously don't know what was actually said, so its hard to form a judgement on the specific event. I'm not accusing Anna of this, but I have witnessed a very small minority of disabled people be very rude and impatient with rail staff in the past to the point it made me uncomfortable.

I think that it only right that people who prebooked assistance should get priority on occasions when they're especially busy and there aren't spare staff. Can you imagine what the newspapers would print if someone prebooked only to have someone else just turn up and "jump the queue"?

 

[TravelDream]

We can both play at that game

Not in any way to play games. I am just stating that not everyone has the choice of getting a job they like. Not everyone has the resources to quit one job and start another.
We're probably both quite lucky that we enjoy ours, but it's not the case for everyone and I think people need to be cognizant of that.

If your job is to assist disabled passengers onto a train, so they can access the service, then that’s what you have to do. If, say, I had a disagreement with a member of staff, and was blunt, or assertive, or had a “for god’s sake” moment…I would still be able to access the train service. I wouldn’t be thrown off the train. I would simply walk on and off it.

I can't believe so many people have this view.

Nobody has to deal with abusive behaviour (which includes being shouted at/ people swearing/ being threatened etc. etc. (even if sugarcoated as blunt or assertive) and the perception of which will vary as is human nature) in the workplace. Not bouncers in a nightclub, prison guards, or railway staff. Nobody.

No, they’re supposed to apologise on behalf of the company which has failed the passenger, and try to manage the situation.

Which, by all accounts, is what the staff member did. They likely apologised and said they would help the passenger as soon as possible, but that people who had pre-booked would have priority. Nothing that has been reported disputes this.
We can argue all day that she has the right to turn up and get assistance, but they simply weren't staffed for this.
Perhaps some people in customer service would serve this (allegedly) abusive woman first to get rid of a difficult customer and leave the people who had pre-booked trains to miss theirs, but I think the staff mad the right choice here in difficult circumstances

They are its representative and are expected to deal with the consequences of such failures. That is how customer facing roles work. It sounds to me like that sort of role is perhaps not for you.

You're probably right.

Though I have done similar roles before and generally enjoy working with people.

 

[AlterEgo]

For all we know they were politely told to just wait 5 minutes as they were dealing with other people, we all have to queue for things in life, its called being a grown up and just dealing with it.

It’s not what happened; they were told they were a “lower priority”. This fact is not in dispute, and the company has apologised.

Not in any way to play games. I am just stating that not everyone has the choice of getting a job they like. Not everyone has the resources to quit one job and start another.
We're probably both quite lucky that we enjoy ours, but it's not the case for everyone and I think people need to be cognizant of that.



I can't believe so many people have this view.

Nobody has to deal with abusive behaviour (which includes being shouted at/ people swearing/ being threatened etc. etc. (even if sugarcoated as blunt or assertive) and the perception of which will vary as is human nature) in the workplace. Not bouncers in a nightclub, prison guards, or railway staff. Nobody.

Nobody has mentioned anyone in the situation was abusive. Where is this coming from?

(Prison guards do need to deal with abusive behaviour, what do you think they do all day? What, they close their eyes and ears and go lalalalalala?)

You are conflating the principles of:

- people should not be abusive to others, and
- it is human nature that people simply are sometimes, and it is up to staff to actually deal with that however they see fit as long as it is legal and reasonable

Yes, rail staff have to deal with abusive customers. I had to sometimes. That is part of the job, and part of the skill set is managing people so they don’t become abusive and also managing them if and when they do.

Which, by all accounts, is what the staff member did. They likely apologised and said they would help the passenger as soon as possible, but that people who had pre-booked would have priority. Nothing that has been reported disputes this.

That’s exactly the problem. It’s not a precondition of receiving your legal right to board public transport that you have to book in advance. Simply turning up is acceptable, and passengers who do so are not a “lower priority”. Companies do not get to impose a hierarchy of convenience on people’s ability to access their human rights.

Perhaps some people in customer service would serve this abusive woman first

I’m very sorry but no source says she was *abusive* and you’ve invented this. She was accused of merely being “rude”, an allegation that was not substantiated in any way and something that even if true would not result in her denial of her legal right to access public transport.

Rude and abusive are two very different things and both are very subjective. No party says she was abusive.

 

[TravelDream]

I’m very sorry but no source says she was *abusive* and you’ve invented this. She was accused of merely being “rude”, an allegation that was not substantiated in any way and something that even if true would not result in her denial of her legal right to access public transport.

The line between rudeness and abuse is very blurred and very much depends on perception.

For staff to have refused service, I can only see them perceiving the rudeness as abuse.

Nothing has been substantiated with this story. We have a one sided account from this woman. A Network Rail manager has apologised, but that is likely just media relations, and doesn't admit to anything. Empty apologies are commonplace and routine is most customer facing industries and you and I have both had many before.

That’s exactly the problem. It’s not a precondition of receiving your legal right to board public transport that you have to book in advance. Simply turning up is acceptable, and passengers who do so are not a “lower priority”. Companies do not get to impose a hierarchy of convenience on people’s ability to access their human rights.

I totally agree with that.
She should have been able to turn up and get assistance for her service.
But they were not able to do so due to lack of staffing.
With one set of hands, someone has to be dealt with first and then someone else second.
As I have said multiple times, it shouldn't happen morally or legally, but it's a fact of life.

Prison guards do need to deal with abusive behaviour, what do you think they do all day?

They shouldn't have to. It's one of the Prison Officer Association's key issues and is one reason why our prisons are terribly understaffed and lose many experienced/ great staff.

 

[TUC]

Not if that manner is abusive (defined as intended or likely to cause harassement, alarm and distress) as defined by the Public Order Act 1986. And you’ll find that’s a pretty broad definition.

But being calmly assertive and clear about the legal position is not being abusive. The problem is more that some people have a low threshold on what they consider harassment, which seems to be little more than the other person having a different view to them, and being better than them at expressing it.

 

[AlterEgo]

For staff to have refused service, I can only see them perceiving the rudeness as abuse.

It’s literally not what any party has said. You’ve invented that because for whatever reason you don’t think staff would refuse access to someone who was merely being difficult, blunt, or assertive. But failures do happen often.

There is only one side of the story, but instead of being ambivalent or open minded, for you to choose not to believe it, and to believe something more extreme about the party having their rights violated, a thing *not mentioned by any party*, based on your own prejudices, is not exactly fair.

I totally agree with that.
She should have been able to turn up and get assistance for her service.
But they were not able to do so due to lack of staffing.
With one set of hands, someone has to be dealt with first and then someone else second.
As I have said multiple times, it shouldn't happen morally or legally, but it's a fact of life.

Oh so now facts of life are relevant are they? So what, disabled people should simply accept it when their access, dignity or humanity is compromised because, hey, it’s a fact of life? Nobody is naive enough to think it’ll never happen; disabled people know these are things they have to navigate. But they’re also entitled to insist their protections under the law are respected.

They shouldn't have to. It's one of the Prison Officer Association's key issues and is one reason why our prisons are terribly understaffed and lose many experienced/ great staff.

Do you think the prison service selects people based on the job being sunshine and rainbows, or do you think they try to select people who are able to handle conflict, abuse, and violence? I mean really. Facts of life and all that! That isn’t the same as thinking the abuse and violence is okay or that nothing can ever be done.

But being calmly assertive and clearly about the legal position is not being abusive. The problem is more that some people have a low threshold on what they consider harassment, which seems to be little more than the other person having a different view to them, and being better than them at expressing it.

Quite!

 

[TUC]

The issue is what is “sufficient”? There may be very rare occasions whereby completely independently, multiple passenger assists need to be done at the same time and staffing for that occurrence is just not reasonably practical.

I agree. Of course staff need to be flexible and accommodate where someone turns up unexpectedly needing assistance but, in small stations with only one or two members of staff, it is entirely reasonable that the passenger is asked to wait whilst the two passengers who have booked assistance are supported first. There is also in most circumstances no reason to delay a service because of the unbooked passenger is still awaiting assistance. After all, the passengers who have booked assistance may well be on those services. Why should they lose out by their journey being delayed?

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree. Of course staff need to be flexible and accommodate where someone turns up unexpectedly needing assistance but, in small stations with only one or two members of staff, it is entirely reasonable that the passenger is asked to wait whilst the two passengers who have booked assistance are supported first. There is also in most circumstances no reason to delay a service because of the unbooked passenger is still awaiting assistance. After all, the passengers who have booked assistance may well be on those services. Why should they lose out by their journey being delayed?

If the passenger who has not booked assistance has turned up in proper time for their train, they should be accommodated on it. Telling them they have to wait - in a way no able bodied person would have to - for the next train, is discriminating against them on the grounds of their disability. Yes, the train should be delayed to accommodate the disabled passenger. Trains suffer delays all the time becuase even pre booked passenger assists can take several minutes to carry out. That’s fine.