Disabled passenger left stranded at Liverpool Street

[EUC]

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?

So you can't be suggesting that a passenger who needs assistance to board — and has exercised their right to turn up and go — should be made to miss their train if it isn't convenient for staff to help them? That would be a clear case of disability discrimination.
The inability of the railway to provide sufficient staff to help all passengers in need of assistance in a timely manner would necessitate the late despatch of train for operational reasons. It wouldn't be the fault of the TUAG passenger.
After all, every passenger who doesn't need assistance can TUAG, too.

 

[RobertsN]

For myself, and I admit to haven't read all the thread, the moment "mansplaining" enters the conversation, it is immediately suspect of an attempt to pile up an extra bit of factors to justify a position.
Apologies if I offend anyone, but a person who needs assistance, needs assistance. Gender doesn't come in to it at all.

 

[TravelDream]

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.

Now who's inventing things?

People get discriminated against all the time. It's immoral. Often it's illegal.
But it happens.

No she shouldn't accept it. But at the same time, she should not have been rude/ abusive/ 'asserted her rights' (feel free to choose) to staff to such an extent that they refused to deal with her (as is their right in such a case if they feel it passes the threshold of 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.

I am sorry, but this is just purely offensive.
You're essentially saying the staff were too thick to understand a different viewpoint and to understand someone expressing a viewpoint in an eloquent manner.
Passenger assist staff are not subhuman, even if they are not in the exceptionally privileged position of, or as 'educated' as, for example, people who can afford to do degrees in foreign countries.
They deserve to do their jobs with dignity and humanity as they provide the essential service they do.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

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.

From reading the article I don't think the lady was initially told she would have to wait for the next train, just for a member of staff who could assist. It does state that a staff member arrived before the train departed, but not in sufficient time to get her on it. However the train should rightfully have been held and hopefully the investigation will look at why it wasn't.

As for what happened next, as many have stated we only have one side of the story- and a journalist's version of it to boot. And we will never see the other side as it will be tied up in Network Rail's internal processes. Even if it wasn't it probably wouldn't be reported, because the British press doesn't appear to like reporting the other side of any story, whatever the subject.

One thing that has struck me in this and other threads on this forum, and in the comments on the newspaper article, is the extraordinary attitude some people have towards railway staff.
Yes, abuse is part of the job (whether it should be or not), but the staff are human and like most people their threshold varies from time to time.
A number of years back I had to call the police to a passenger behaving inappropriately towards a toddler. A few days later I called an ambulance to a passenger who had collapsed; when the ambulance crew brought her round she physically assaulted them and they requested that I call the police. The next night I called the police to a passenger who was racially abusing other passengers. As I went back to reassure them that the police were on the way, their abuser threatened to knock me out. Usually this would wash off (if you're going to knock someone out you just do it, you don't tell them first!) but on this occasion, after everything else, I just crumbled.
I've had colleagues who left the job after being badly verbally abused and threatened. They weren't "unsuitable" for the role; far from it, they were great with the customers. I even had a colleague who took his own life because he was sick of the abuse.
So please, unless you are in possession of all the facts and those facts clearly show wrongdoing by the staff involved then keep an open mind.

As a final point over the last twenty or so years I've watched Network Rail heighten many station platforms and I've seen thousands of new trains enter service. If there was any joined-up thinking all of the platforms and train floors would be at the same height, thereby giving level boarding.
This would have given wheelchair users the equality they are entitled to, and the fact it hasn't happened despite all the investment is a disgrace and the root cause of stories such as this.

 

[AlterEgo]

No she shouldn't accept it. But at the same time, she should not have been rude/ abusive/ 'asserted her rights' (feel free to choose) to staff to such an extent that they refused to deal with her (as is their right in such a case if they feel it passes the threshold of being abusive).

This presupposes that, despite you not being there, you believe the staff were de facto in the right to deny the disabled passenger access to the train, and you refuse to entertain the possibility that they were wrong to do so. In fact, there is no possibility in your mind the staff were wrong; the apology from their employer is meaningless as you claim, as is their attempt to reach out to the person they discriminated against. You don’t have the full story, but instead of saying “hmm! That’s a tough one; maybe we need more information, wish we could find out exactly what happened” you lay the blame squarely on the person who had their rights infringed. No, for you, it is the disabled person who is certainly in the wrong here; it is their fault they were discriminated against.

Would you think that about any other protected characteristic, or is it just disability? That if someone is less than entirely polite, or assertive, or tries to demand their civil rights, they deserve to be racially discriminated against by staff? Or discriminated against because of their sex? Or discriminated on the grounds of their sexual orientation?

I think you should try to be a little more understanding of disabled people and the challenges they face, as well as more open minded about what can really happen on the ground.

 

[Horizon22]

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

Fair enough.

 

[TravelDream]

This presupposes that, despite you not being there, you believe the staff were de facto in the right to deny the disabled passenger access to the train, and you refuse to entertain the possibility that they were wrong to do so. In fact, there is no possibility in your mind the staff were wrong; the apology from their employer is meaningless as you claim, as is their attempt to reach out to the person they discriminated against.

Clearly it's a possibility.
It might have simply been the passenger being perceived as abusive.
It might have just been the staff member having a bad day. Multiple rude people just before this person. One of their parents passing the day before. The person was only human after all. Who knows?
However, I think we would have heard a lot more about it if people at Liverpool Street were frequently refused passenger assist by staff for no reason.

And yes, I know the apology is meaningless. Anyone who has any knowledge of the corporate world knows it.
Truthfully you know it. 'We apologise for the delay to the 1130 service to JFK' isn't an apology'. This is little different. The Network Rail managers are going through the motions as the story is now in the media.

Passenger assist does need to be looked at as it simply isn't fit for purpose.

 

[Krokodil]

If the passenger who has not booked assistance has turned up in proper time for their train, they should be accommodated on it.

Subject to there being space, of course. We don't know the whole story and should not act as judge, jury and executioner on the basis of what we have read in the media.

 

[AlterEgo]

Clearly it's a possibility.
It might have simply been the passenger being perceived as abusive.

The passenger was told they were “rude”, a direct quote from them, unless you want to introduce a further allegation that they’re lying.

It might have just been the staff member having a bad day.

That’s not a defence to direct disability discrimination.

Multiple rude people just before this person.

That’s not a defence.

One of their parents passing the day before.

Same.

The person was only human after all.

So’s the person attempting to access public transport in a wheelchair which they have a legal right to do without discrimination.

Who knows?
However, I think we would have heard a lot more about it if people at Liverpool Street were frequently refused passenger assist by staff for no reason.

They don’t have to be frequently refused. It happened to this person on this occasion, almost certainly unlawfully. Nobody is talking about this location being a place where people are being frequently refused. You are.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

The passenger was told they were “rude”, a direct quote from them, unless you want to introduce a further allegation that they’re lying.

No, the newspaper report claims that this is the case. I know several people who have been interviewed by newspapers and been completely misquoted, and when they have complained the newspaper has failed to publish the correction.
Do we know for definite that the "quote" is actually what Anna said?

That’s not a defence.

Same.

Wow

 

[AlterEgo]

No, the newspaper report claims that this is the case.

No, Anna says that this is the case, in her thread on Twitter/X. That’s what the news is reporting from and where it is quoting her. She was called rude for telling a member of staff what her rights are and that she “didn’t need a lecture”. It’s just common-or-garden, entry level customer-staff conflict.

Wow

What are you surprised at? That people still retain their rights under the Equality Act even when the person acting to discriminate against them just had some rude people to deal with or their mum died? It’s completely immaterial, it isn’t the disabled person’s problem.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

No, Anna says that this is the case, in her thread on Twitter/X. That’s what the news is reporting from and where it is quoting her. She was called rude for telling a member of staff what her rights are and that she “didn’t need a lecture”. It’s just common-or-garden, entry level customer-staff conflict.

Ok, thank you. I'm not on X so I hadn't seen this, thanks for confirming.

No, Anna says that this is the case, in her thread on Twitter/X. That’s what the news is reporting from and where it is quoting her. She was called rude for telling a member of staff what her rights are and that she “didn’t need a lecture”. It’s just common-or-garden, entry level customer-staff conflict.


What are you surprised at? That people still retain their rights under the Equality Act even when the person acting to discriminate against them just had some rude people to deal with or their mum died? It’s completely immaterial, it isn’t the disabled person’s problem.

I'm surprised at your lack of compassion. I'm not saying it's the disabled person's problem, or anyone else's. But if a staff member was to come to work after such news and their manager did not know (or care enough) to send them home, then obviously they might not be at the top of their game on that day.
And as someone who has experienced it, I can assure you that your mum dying is in no way immaterial.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ok, thank you. I'm not on X so I hadn't seen this, thanks for confirming.

I'm surprised at your lack of compassion. I'm not saying it's the disabled person's problem, or anyone else's. But if a staff member was to come to work after such news and their manager did not know (or care enough) to send them home, then obviously they might not be at the top of their game on that day.
And as someone who has experienced it, I can assure you that your mum dying is in no way immaterial.

It’s not relevant, I’m sorry. I am only talking here about the rights of disabled people to access public transport. Those rights aren’t affected by whether the people discriminating against them are having a bad day or not.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

It’s not relevant, I’m sorry. I am only talking here about the rights of disabled people to access public transport. Those rights aren’t affected by whether the people discriminating against them are having a bad day or not.

Without wishing to go round in circles, I'm not disputing the rights of disabled people to access public transport. I've already said that the train should have been held so that the staff member who belatedly arrived could put Anna onto it. I've also lamented the missed opportunity for level boarding, which I hope will be rectified in the future.

However it does concern me that so many people on here expect railway staff to be 100% flawless all the time. It doesn't happen in any other workplace, (shop/office/pub/factory) or on any other mode of transport (bus/taxi/plane etc ). Should it? Possibly. Can it? No because railway staff are human too, and humans make mistakes sometimes.

 

[VItraveller]

Ok, thank you. I'm not on X so I hadn't seen this, thanks for confirming.

I'm surprised at your lack of compassion. I'm not saying it's the disabled person's problem, or anyone else's. But if a staff member was to come to work after such news and their manager did not know (or care enough) to send them home, then obviously they might not be at the top of their game on that day.
And as someone who has experienced it, I can assure you that your mum dying is in no way immaterial.

I think anyone can make up any number of fictional scenarios as to why the member of staff behaved in the way they did, and equally the same for the passenger, but I don’t think it’s relevant.
for example, maybe Anna was short with the member of staff because she needed to catch the train from Liverpool Street to attend the funeral of her beloved grandfather who she hadn’t seen for 10 years or heck maybe she was just annoyed at having to spend the previous half hour in a smelly boiling tube carriage.
But it seems some are saying that if a disabled passenger is rude, it’s fine for staff to not assist them regardless of the reasons for their rudeness but if in turn a member of staff is rude, we should take into account external factors like how many other rude people they’ve dealt with on that day or whether they’ve had any personal problems but don’t accord that same consideration to the disabled passenger.

 

[TUC]

So you can't be suggesting that a passenger who needs assistance to board — and has exercised their right to turn up and go — should be made to miss their train if it isn't convenient for staff to help them? That would be a clear case of disability discrimination.
The inability of the railway to provide sufficient staff to help all passengers in need of assistance in a timely manner would necessitate the late despatch of train for operational reasons. It wouldn't be the fault of the TUAG passenger.
After all, every passenger who doesn't need assistance can TUAG, too.

In relation to turn up and go, Network Rail's site says the following:
'We want you to feel confident when travelling by rail and understand the importance of supporting flexible travel plans.
You can ‘turn up and go’ without booking assistance in advance, but if you require assistance at short notice please make yourself known to a member of staff or use a Help Point when you arrive at the station.
Where a station is staffed, they will always help you if they can. However, you should be aware that, on occasion, it could take a little longer as staff may be assisting other customers, dispatching a train, or looking after safety on the platform.
If staff are not able to help you straight away, they will explain clearly why not and do their best to assist as soon as they can.'

Assisted travel - Network Rail

Assisted travel helps everyone to travel safely, in comfort and with confidence, both in our stations and on your journey.

www.networkrail.co.uk

I think that is a reasonable balance.

I do come back to, is it reasonable for disabled people who have booked assistance and who need to be at their destination at a given time to have their journey delayed because of someone who has not? How is that fair and reasonable?

 

[styles]

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.

Where has it been said that the passenger was abusive?

 

[lordbusiness]

Absolutely correct this should never have happened but...

The passenger assist system is under strain- until sufficient resource (staff) are provided then it is going to happen. I was staggered when I found out the number of assists my TOC did last year. I regularly hear of trains at my home station having 11 or 12 assists on one departure of which some are using the service as a porter service for excessive amounts of luggage sadly.

 

[TUC]

Absolutely correct this should never have happened but...

The passenger assist system is under strain- until sufficient resource (staff) are provided then it is going to happen. I was staggered when I found out the number of assists my TOC did last year. I regularly hear of trains at my home station having 11 or 12 assists on one departure of which some are using the service as a porter service for excessive amounts of luggage sadly.

That would sound surprising. When I catch trains at Leeds Station-a large and so representative example-I don't recall seeing more than two or three passengers requiring assistance for a given train.

Now who's inventing things?

People get discriminated against all the time. It's immoral. Often it's illegal.
But it happens.

No she shouldn't accept it. But at the same time, she should not have been rude/ abusive/ 'asserted her rights' (feel free to choose) to staff to such an extent that they refused to deal with her (as is their right in such a case if they feel it passes the threshold of being abusive).



I am sorry, but this is just purely offensive.
You're essentially saying the staff were too thick to understand a different viewpoint and to understand someone expressing a viewpoint in an eloquent manner.
Passenger assist staff are not subhuman, even if they are not in the exceptionally privileged position of, or as 'educated' as, for example, people who can afford to do degrees in foreign countries.
They deserve to do their jobs with dignity and humanity as they provide the essential service they do.

That's not what I am saying. It's not about intelligence. It is about some people seem to be used to others just accepting what they say at face value, or at most moaning a bit about it, but accepting it. They are not used to someone calmly giving a cogent, reasoned argument back.

 

[deltic]

For those who want to read her own account of what happened and her response to Network Rail's apology it can be read on her LinkedIn post https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anna...p&rcm=ACoAAAJnyU8BYj59eksCWJIJFnKKCgZweRJFBvo

In that email she states

she dearly loves the assistance staff at Stratford International

highlighting she is not having a go at staff in general.

 

[lordbusiness]

That would sound surprising. When I catch trains at Leeds Station-a large and so representative example-I don't recall seeing more than two or three passengers requiring assistance for a given train.


That's not what I am saying. It's not about intelligence. It is about some people seem to be used to others just accepting what they say at face value, or at most moaning a bit about it, but accepting it. They are not used to someone calmly giving a cogent, reasoned argument back.

Record for my home station last summer for assists in one day (not at liberty to divulge the name) but it's a small/medium sized city that serves a number of holiday resorts was.....

111

 

[pelli]

For those who want to read her own account of what happened and her response to Network Rail's apology it can be read on her LinkedIn post https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anna...p&rcm=ACoAAAJnyU8BYj59eksCWJIJFnKKCgZweRJFBvo

According to that post she had already accepted that she would miss the first train and was waiting for the next, but after her interaction with the staff she was told she would not be assisted at all onto any train by any staff (my bold):

[...]

I had chosen to Turn Up and Go, as is my right. He explained they were too busy to get me on my first train (which I'd already been told by 2 others), & I was a lower priority than those who booked assistance. As I work in accessible transport, I firmly but politely told him that I know the law & did not need a lecture -- I was just waiting for the next train since I'd "missed" the first. He continued on, I repeated myself, at which point he said I was "rude" & that he would not assist me. I said okay, that's fine -- personally, feeling like I was the one showing restraint in this interaction!

Several mins later, another staff member (manager?) came over (w/ 2 security staff) to tell me I was "rude," so the staff member would not assist me. I told her I did not believe I was rude at all, I was polite but firm about not needing a lecture on the need to book versus using my TUAG right like nondisabled people get to do -- but again, okay, that's fine. I would wait for the next train. (I'd seen at least 4 assistance staff at this point, & assumed another would be assigned to help me.)

She left & came back to tell me that I would not be given ramp assistance at all, by any staff, because I was “rude.”

[...]

That seems to be quite a different scenario to what the forum is debating, which is the right (or not) to not miss the first train at all.

 

[WelshBluebird]

But at the same time, she should not have been rude/ abusive/ 'asserted her rights' (feel free to choose) to staff to such an extent that they refused to deal with her (as is their right in such a case if they feel it passes the threshold of being abusive).

Disabled people have to assert their rights all of the time. If they didnt they wouldn't be able to do lots of things. If you dont want them to have to do that then maybe you need to accept that sometimes staff members, or the industry as a while, are in the wrong! If disabled people weren't denied their rights on a regular basis they wouldn't have to assert those rights.

 

[TFN]

If staff are not able to help you straight away, they will explain clearly why not

Could the staff have been trying to explain what happened (busy with pre booked assistance) but the lady didn’t want to hear/accept it and the assistance staff interpreted it as rude?

(Not an excuse for refusing passenger assistance btw).

 

[fandroid]

To boil it all down, if they cannot get it 100% right at Liverpool Street, Britain's busiest station and a modern London terminus, why should any disabled person have any confidence about travelling anywhere by train?

Many comments have used the relatively low status of frontline staff as a justification. But they're not out there on their own! They are part of a team and structure. Their managers/supervisors should be drilling the ethos of customer service into them and providing immediate backup in cases like this.

She was right to challenge the Liverpool Street set-up on behalf of all disabled train users. If the biggest and best are shown to fail, what hope is there at tiny places way out on the network?

(edited to correct a minor typo)

 

[AlterEgo]

Without wishing to go round in circles, I'm not disputing the rights of disabled people to access public transport. I've already said that the train should have been held so that the staff member who belatedly arrived could put Anna onto it. I've also lamented the missed opportunity for level boarding, which I hope will be rectified in the future.

However it does concern me that so many people on here expect railway staff to be 100% flawless all the time. It doesn't happen in any other workplace, (shop/office/pub/factory) or on any other mode of transport (bus/taxi/plane etc ). Should it? Possibly. Can it? No because railway staff are human too, and humans make mistakes sometimes.

Nobody expects them to be flawless all the time, but that they aren’t is of no concern to the person they’re discriminating against. I’ve been there and done it as staff, you have your off days for all sorts of reasons but I don’t think I ever discriminated against someone on the grounds of their disability because of it. We had all sorts of difficult and abrasive people booking passenger assistance who often had to be told what was and was not possible; I just had to get on with it.

In relation to turn up and go, Network Rail's site says the following:
'We want you to feel confident when travelling by rail and understand the importance of supporting flexible travel plans.
You can ‘turn up and go’ without booking assistance in advance, but if you require assistance at short notice please make yourself known to a member of staff or use a Help Point when you arrive at the station.
Where a station is staffed, they will always help you if they can. However, you should be aware that, on occasion, it could take a little longer as staff may be assisting other customers, dispatching a train, or looking after safety on the platform.
If staff are not able to help you straight away, they will explain clearly why not and do their best to assist as soon as they can.'

Assisted travel - Network Rail

Assisted travel helps everyone to travel safely, in comfort and with confidence, both in our stations and on your journey.

www.networkrail.co.uk

I think that is a reasonable balance.

I do come back to, is it reasonable for disabled people who have booked assistance and who need to be at their destination at a given time to have their journey delayed because of someone who has not? How is that fair and reasonable?

Why the concern only about the disabled passengers on the train? You could ask under exactly the same logic whether it is fair and reasonable for anyone who is able bodied to be delayed by a disabled person requiring booked or unbooked assistance? This happens all the time; passenger assists can be complex and can delay 500 able bodied people and take several minutes. Even if they’ve been booked in advance.

Many disabled people can’t book in advance for a whole myriad of reasons. One is - a lot of them are busy, active, productive people with hectic jobs and a life who just want to turn up and go like anyone else! They should always be accommodated if they have turned up in time to make the train in the same way I would be if I arrived two minutes before departure. It’s not my concern or problem if I, with my mostly working legs, end up +3 off Liverpool Street, because the train company has had to deploy ramps and find staff to assist someone who can’t walk onto the unlevel train.

If trains were being delayed all the time because the company hadn’t got a decent boarding process for its able bodied customers safely and quickly, it would change or improve the process because it would recognise that was a priority and that those passengers were important.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The fundamental problem is that, in my experience, if disabled people are meek and mild then they get ignored and if they are more robust in asserting their rights they are a nuisance and “abusive”.

I used to travel on business regularly with a wheelchair user when we were both Directors of a company. The experience was eye-opening. On at least three occasions she was forgotten at York; on one occasion I simply stood in the carriage doorway to prevent it closing until a ramp came and was threatened with the police for doing so. If I hadn’t she’d have been overcarried- the next stop was Newcastle on that particular train- and would have likely been delayed by about 2.5 hours getting home. It simply isn’t acceptable. Last week she tells me she was ‘forgotten’ at New Pudsey, which was particularly impressive as she’d only boarded at Bradford Interchange.

The issue isn’t with specific individuals, though, the issue is industry-wide and the issue is systemic. The fundamental problem is that staff cost money and the railway management want to get rid of as many staff as possible. This means the remaining staff are overworked and stressed as a result and this means that disabled passengers are ignored and stressed as a result. You can see why overworked staff take any criticism as “abuse” and you can see why disabled people feel that they have to be robust otherwise they simply get ignored.

 

[Krokodil]

To boil it all down, if they cannot get it 100% right at Liverpool Street, Britain's busiest station and a modern London terminus, why should any disabled person have any confidence about travelling anywhere by train?

I'm not sure why you would expect things to be better at larger stations (Euston is notorious for forgetting to offload disabled passengers). If you think about it the smaller stations have less potential for communication breakdown between staff (can't have a miscommunication at a single-manned station) or for the passenger to become lost among a crowd.

 

[LowLevel]

Ultimately the question of assistance being provided 100% of the time without flaw is never going to occur - that's why a robust and punitive compensation scheme is required and appropriate.

However it is inevitable that no matter how hard you try and put the right resource in place, occasionally it's going to be insufficient.

I work seasonal trains to the seaside that can rock up with 10 booked assistance jobs plus additional Turn up and go. The next week the same train might have 2, 3 or none. You do your best to manage. You'll see managers, train guards, agency staff and all sorts of other people running around assisting people but sometimes they have to wait, especially as the return working for the same train will also have plenty of people needing assistance wishing to board.

The same goes for occasional late night failures. 360 days a year a station might manage with the it's usual staffing level, then unexpectedly a random high level of demand will occur which they will need some time to deal with. You don't employ someone sat doing nothing all night 360 days a year to cope with one unpredictable night.

I am reminded of an occasion some years I worked a train stopping at Thetford when unexpectedly something in the order of 30 visually impaired people as individuals and small groups, many with guide dogs, some needing a ramp, "Turned Up and Goed" for my already busy 2 car class 158 having attended some sort of conference, as is their right.

The station booking clerk and I did our best (even the driver came out to help with luggage) but the train was delayed somewhere in the order of 10-20 minutes whilst we got everyone on board safely and the net result was nearly 100 passengers so far as I could count missing long distance connections, including the majority of the group of visually impaired people which was a nightmare for them and us trying to work out how best to get them to where they needed to be safely.

The same thing has never happened to me before or since and I doubt Thetford station normally sees 30 passenger assist bookings a week or even a fortnight.

The position of "this is a legal right so must never proceed in any fashion but a smooth one" doesn't stand up to day to day reality with the creaky old railway that we have - which is why 100% effort should be made by the operator, with a significant compensation available in the case of failure - I'm quite comfortable with the 4 figure sum awarded to Doug Paulley. His failings don't tend to be down to a lack of resource though, more incompetence or communication failure.

Some caution is needed though - for example we used to have a rogue passenger who booked assistance and then having boarded a train would change carriage to the opposite end of the train, sometimes even changing *trains* so as to be absent after being booked on board, do their best to dodge any incoming staff, and then claim for failed assistance, often making sure to have a minor accident like walking into a post on the way. It got to the point the area manager had to be advised every time they entered or left the premises. This was many years ago and I changed jobs years ago so I have no idea what happened with them but I know revenue protection were building a substantial file for ticket irregularities too.

Obviously not relevant in this case but if this individual had been subject to a 4 figure reward every time they set up an assistance failure they'd have probably been in to the 6 figures over the years they were doing it it was that prolific.

 

[sprunt]

My favourite bit of the usual rail industry wagon-circling in this thread is "What if the other disabled passengers were annoyed that the train had to delayed for 5 minutes to assist a wheelchair user onto it?" I'm certain that if they heard this was the reason for the delay they'd be delighted that the industry was finally taking its responsibilities to disabled people seriously.