Disabled Person's Railcard - can rail staff ask about the disability?

[Tetchytyke]

I do not see why he would need to know your disability. That said I do not think there is any law that prohibits this though.

The Equality Act prohibits it.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

We seem to be going off topic, but:

To be fair, I think he was just a jobsworth conductor as he asked what my disability was due to me having a Disabled Railcard, but he got firmly told under the Equality Act 2010 he couldn't ask me that sort of question.

I do not see why he would need to know your disability. That said I do not think there is any law that prohibits this though.

The Equality Act prohibits it.

Does it?
It's not in my field, but I am surprised by this. Which section of the Act would that be, within the context of GaryMcEwan's post?

I can see applications of the Act which might specifically require asking for such clarification where a persons' characteristic might influence the services offered, or the price quoted, or some other financial arrangement.

 

[island]

We seem to be going off topic, butoes it?
It's not in my field, but I am surprised by this. Which section of the Act would that be, within the context of GaryMcEwan's post?

I can see applications of the Act which might specifically require asking for such clarification where a persons' characteristic might influence the services offered, or the price quoted, or some other financial arrangement.

I should also like to know this. The Equality Act, its predecessor the Disability Discrimination Act, and the Data Protection Act are among those regularly thrown around, with very little in terms of section numbers or firm quotations, by people whom being charitable, are less familiar with the law than they make themselves out to be.

 

[richw]

Railway or some other industry? Confused by this

Different industry, however my original point was relevant to the matter of retaining cards that were discussed

 

[Tetchytyke]

I can see applications of the Act which might specifically require asking for such clarification where a persons' characteristic might influence the services offered, or the price quoted, or some other financial arrangement.

In the context of Gary's post, the provisions surrounding not treating people differently would apply. If the guard was asking for a specific purpose- e.g. asking the customer required specific help or support- then it would be allowed. If the guard had a specific reason for asking he should have explained it. The lack of explanation implies nosiness.

Asking because you're a nosey bugger would be covered under the provisions preventing discrimination or harassment- asking someone deeply intrusive questions about their health because they are holding a Railcard would very much be "treating someone less favourably" due to their disability.

Now we all know that, in reality, the guard would be able to argue that he was asking for a reasonable and specific purpose. But lets be honest, grilling someone on what their disability is because of the railcard they hold is treating someone unfavourably because of their disability.

very little in terms of section numbers or firm quotations, by people whom being charitable, are less familiar with the law than they make themselves out to be.

Try chapter two for starters, especially sections 13 and 15.

 

[34D]

covered under the provisions preventing discrimination or harassment- asking someone deeply intrusive questions about their health because they are holding a Railcard would very much be "treating someone less favourably" due to their disability.

Now we all know that, in reality, the guard would be able to argue that he was asking for a reasonable and specific purpose. But lets be honest, grilling someone on what their disability is because of the railcard they hold is treating someone unfavourably because of their disability.

Well no, he's trying to ascertain whether the railcard is legitimate or obtained fraudulently.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Disabled people are at liberty to pay the full adult fare if they wish to do so

 

[GaryMcEwan]

Well no, he's trying to ascertain whether the railcard is legitimate or obtained fraudulently.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Disabled people are at liberty to pay the full adult fare if they wish to do so

Actually no, if he thought it was a fraudulent railcard, then he should of asked for me ID to prove it was mine. He was just an arse of a conductor and gives good conductors a bad name..

 

[cjmillsnun]

Well no, he's trying to ascertain whether the railcard is legitimate or obtained fraudulently.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

Disabled people are at liberty to pay the full adult fare if they wish to do so

Many disabilities are hidden. To ask about someone's disability to determine validity could be counted as discrimination.

The guard doesn't determine what a valid disability is.

They can however confirm that the person concerned is the owner of the railcard by asking for ID and confirming the name matches that on the railcard.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . in reality, the guard would be able to argue that he was asking for a reasonable and specific purpose. But lets be honest, grilling someone on what their disability is because of the railcard they hold is treating someone unfavourably because of their disability.

Now I can't recall where the 'grilling' came into the story, but if the Guard's question was directed specifically at validating the ticket and railcard (which I believe is reasonable and specific) then I am not persuaded that it is discrimanatory in terms of the Act. (I'm still assuming that the payment had not been made for the journey on the railways).

Try chapter two for starters, especially sections 13 and 15.

Thanks. That is what I was looking for.

But I'm unable to read those Sections of the Act as adequate clarification that the question reported by GaryMcEwan would be captured by them; I cannot see that the Guard's questions "treat the disabled person unfavourably" unless there were other consequential outcomes which were indeed unfavourable when contrasted with the outcomes for the train's other passengers who had not tickets, had declined cards and/or held other ticket and railcard combinations (all of whom would be reasonably considered to be potentially suspected of fare evasion, fraud or trespass).

Actually no, if he thought it was a fraudulent railcard, then he should of asked for me ID to prove it was mine. He was just an arse of a conductor and gives good conductors a bad name..

He certainly could have done, but I can't agree that it is a necessary request - clarification of identity can be pursued later if there is reason to suspect it, and I will only be able to guess, that at that point in the journey, he did not have reason to doubt it, but was concerned to see that the due fares were being paid (and if I read the thread correctly, they were not. That has a significant bearing on the matter).

Your carefully considered analysis of the Guard and his competencies as "an arse" certainly don't help me to understand the underlying issues which all front line staff must face while dealing with ticketless passengers every day, I'm not sure that it will help many of them, either. But thanks all the same.

. . . . To ask about someone's disability to determine validity could be counted as discrimination.

Indeed, but the operative word for me is "could". The question in my mind is not 'could it be' or 'could it not' but is a question of fact. Is it discriminatory? The Act is quite simple, I find. There has to be a substantial element to the discrimination, and I struggle to see that 'asking' is substantial, though in Artic Troll's comment, he referred to 'a grilling' which, whatever it means, seems to be describing something 'substantial' (whether for a ticketless traveller who is unable to pay, or not).

 

[richw]

Should he suspect something was amiss he is perfectly allowed to ask unlimited questions relating to the subject under the equality act.

Therefore if he has any suspicion about the railcard being obtained fraudulently he can then ask unlimited questions about that subject, e.g. What is the Disability? What is the health issue? Etc

 

[fowler9]

Should he suspect something was amiss he is perfectly allowed to ask unlimited questions relating to the subject under the equality act.

Therefore if he has any suspicion about the railcard being obtained fraudulently he can then ask unlimited questions about that subject, e.g. What is the Disability? What is the health issue? Etc

If he or she has suspicions about the validity of the railcard the conductor is going to look bad if they are wrong. Its a shame but I'd say a conductor should be damn sure there is an issue before they create a tabloid headline.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well no, he's trying to ascertain whether the railcard is legitimate or obtained fraudulently.

I can't actually believe you have actually just said that.

You can't just rock up at a railway station with a fake limp and get a Disabled Person's Railcard. You have to provide evidence, from a medical professional or the Department for Work and Pensions, that you are actually disabled and in receipt of a relevant benefit. Disabled Persons Railcards are not issued at railway stations, ATOC have a specific office dealing with these applications.

If the guard believes that the Railcard has been tampered with, or is not being used by the registered owner, then he should have asked for ID. It is none of his business what the holder's disability is, especially as being disabled is not the sole requirement for holding a Disabled Person's Railcard.

 

[andythebrave]

I can't actually believe you have actually just said that.

You can't just rock up at a railway station with a fake limp and get a Disabled Person's Railcard. You have to provide evidence, from a medical professional or the Department for Work and Pensions, that you are actually disabled and in receipt of a relevant benefit. Disabled Persons Railcards are not issued at railway stations, ATOC have a specific office dealing with these applications.

If the guard believes that the Railcard has been tampered with, or is not being used by the registered owner, then he should have asked for ID. It is none of his business what the holder's disability is, especially as being disabled is not the sole requirement for holding a Disabled Person's Railcard.

Hear, hear. My wife has what may be termed a hidden disability and, were she to be asked a question like that in public she would be extremely embarrassed and merely asking the question would stand a reasonable chance of causing her illness to at least temporarily worsen. Regardless of what any laws on discrimination say or don't say, I would suggest that such a question does, in itself, constitute harrassment as that is something that depends solely on how the recipient is made to feel and not on the content itself.

 

[87 027]

Agreed. And is the guard qualified to evaluate the response anyway? I know someone who a few years ago was given a disabled railcard after their driving licence was taken away because of epilepsy. Disability isn't just crutches and wheelchairs!

 

[GaryMcEwan]

[Mod note: Split from this discussion about declined cards.]

From what I saw yesterday, Scotrail's Chip and Pin machines have to be the worst.

I was travelling from Glasgow to Livingston South, and along the way there are a lot of stations without ticket offices and self ticket machines. And due to most of the stations along the way were out in the country, there didn't appear to be many cash machines around either.

When people got on at the sparse stations and wanted to pay by card, the card machine declined it straight away, this happened to at least 8 people but yet the conductor was making out to be the passengers fault by not having any cash on them to pay for the ticket and stated that if it happened again when that conductor was on, he threatened to take all their names and send them off to Scotrail for Penalty Fares.

To be fair, I think he was just a jobsworth conductor as he asked what my disability was due to me having a Disabled Railcard, but he got firmly told under the Equality Act 2010 he couldn't ask me that sort of question.

 

[reb0118]

To be fair, I think he was just a jobsworth conductor as he asked what my disability was due to me having a Disabled Railcard, but he got firmly told under the Equality Act 2010 he couldn't ask me that sort of question.

I do not see why he would need to know your disability. That said I do not think there is any law that prohibits this though. It may be, being charitable, that he wished to know in case you needed extra assistance or time alighting e.g. It may be, being cheeky, that he suspected that the railcard was not yours. I do not know as I was not there.

 

[Greenback]

No, in my view the guard is not qualified at all to evaluate the response. Leaving aside the issue about whether asking such questions is permitted under the Equality Act, it's pointless asking at all if the guard is unable to assess whether the answer given permits a disabled railcard to be used.

That's quite apart from the fact that being asked such a personal question by a non medical professional is likely to be seen as intrusive by the recipient regardless of how the law is interpreted.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

So nobody knows why he asked? I'm not a medical professional, nor am I qualified to judge who is entitled to the railcard but could I just throw the following into the ring:

The passenger may need assistance, or special help to leave the train in the event of an emergency.

The passenger may suffer from a condition that causes concern to, or complaints from, other passengers.

The Passenger may need the assistance of medical professionals during the journey and the guard being able to pass on these details at an earlier stage may help proceedings.

In each case I'm sure finding out a problem like that at the last possible moment, or even when it is too late, would be less effective.

Of course, staff could all just leave the disabled railcard holders to their own devices and when they need to know about the issue, the staff can all hide behind 'not wanting to discriminate or cause offence'....no? didn't think so.

Nice cake, yummy cake......

 

[thebigcheese]

@hairyhandedfool : I think rather than ask "what is your disability?" I'd prefer to be asked "do you need any assistance with your journey?" - a much less intrusive question especially if there are other passengers around.

I am surprised the cards don't come with photo's however

 

[andythebrave]

Rather than "What is your disability" I believe that "Do you require any assistance?" may be received favourably by most but the best option is to wait to be asked.

 

[thebigcheese]

The passenger may suffer from a condition that causes concern to, or complaints from, other passengers.

Guard: What's your disability?
Pax: I'm Epileptic
Guard: Let's move you over here away from everyone else in case you start fitting

Or

*Bing Bong*
Welcome aboard this 12.08 service to London. We'd like to apologise for the delay to your service this morning and for the gentleman in carriage #4 - but don't worry he's disabled



Or did you have a different scenario in mind?

 

[Greenback]

I agree that asking if someone requires assistance is far better than bluntly asking about the nature of their disability. Even if unintentional, the latter wording can be interpreted as being judgemental, in a way that the former wording is not.

I would go further, and suggest that people who carry a disabled railcard do not deserve to be interrogated just because they may have a medical emergency. Anyone may be suddenly taken ill, and may be allergic to various treatments, but there is no more need for anyone to be questioned about their health when taking a train journey than it is when they enter a shop, go to the cinema, visit the pub or go for a meal.

 

[Tetchytyke]

could I just throw the following into the ring:

The passenger may need assistance, or special help to leave the train in the event of an emergency.

The passenger may suffer from a condition that causes concern to, or complaints from, other passengers.

The Passenger may need the assistance of medical professionals during the journey and the guard being able to pass on these details at an earlier stage may help proceedings.

Holding a Disabled Person's Railcard does not mean that one has a physical impairment. Equally, not holding a Disabled Person's Railcard does not mean that one is able-bodied.

But if a guard wished to make that assumption, "just checking, will you want any extra help during your journey?" would be the most appropriate way to ask the question, never mind the most polite.

Asking someone what their disability is an extremely intrusive question, and not one that people should be asking unless there's a bloody good reason why they need to know.

Of course, staff could all just leave the disabled railcard holders to their own devices and when they need to know about the issue, the staff can all hide behind 'not wanting to discriminate or cause offence'....no? didn't think so.

If the holder of a Disabled Person's Railcard has neither asked staff for assistance nor booked assisted travel, I don't see anything wrong with "leaving them to their own devices", just as you would any other passenger.

If someone hasn't asked for help, it's usually a safe assumption that they don't want help.

 

[Tracky]

I would never ask a disabled railcard holder why they had the railcard that's up to the railcard issuer.

I might check the name against their payment card, or question their holding of the railcard if it said Mr X and it was a woman travelling alone who handed it to me.

 

[Emyr]

question their holding of the railcard if it said Mr X and it was a woman travelling alone who handed it to me.

That's a whole other kettle of fish!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

@hairyhandedfool : I think rather than ask "what is your disability?" I'd prefer to be asked "do you need any assistance with your journey?" - a much less intrusive question especially if there are other passengers around....

Rather than "What is your disability" I believe that "Do you require any assistance?" may be received favourably by most but the best option is to wait to be asked.

I'd agree, and I'd probably do that, but I was not the guard on the train.

Guard: What's your disability?
Pax: I'm Epileptic
Guard: Let's move you over here away from everyone else in case you start fitting

Or

*Bing Bong*
Welcome aboard this 12.08 service to London. We'd like to apologise for the delay to your service this morning and for the gentleman in carriage #4 - but don't worry he's disabled



Or did you have a different scenario in mind?

Disabilities come in many forms, some obvious, some not, some might have this sort of issue, others not. I couldn't possibly comment on how other people might, or might not, react to a given situation.

I'm not suggesting a guard move them because of a disability, or single them out over the PA, I'm saying that if a situation arose, it might be helpful to have all the facts before it happens, rather than try to sort it all out 'in the heat of the moment'.

But if you'd like to think of me being deliberately discriminatory, picture me as the guard who points and laughs really loudly, I'm sure you can think of a good scenario for that.

....But if a guard wished to make that assumption, "just checking, will you want any extra help during your journey?" would be the most appropriate way to ask the question, never mind the most polite....

I agree, but then I wasn't the guard.

....If the holder of a Disabled Person's Railcard has neither asked staff for assistance nor booked assisted travel, I don't see anything wrong with "leaving them to their own devices", just as you would any other passenger....

There is no way to determine if there may be a special need for a passenger who has no obvious indicators of need. A Disabled Persons Railcard is an indicator that special requirements may be needed. MY point really, though, was that staff can do no right.

....If someone hasn't asked for help, it's usually a safe assumption that they don't want help.

How did the training department put it again?....ah yes...To ASSUME makes an ASS out of U and ME.

 

[Greenback]

However you dress it's up, it's simply not appropriate for the guard to have asked the question that they asked in the way that they asked it.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

There are better ways to ask the question, if it needs asking, I don't think that is in dispute.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I would never ask a disabled railcard holder why they had the railcard that's up to the railcard issuer.

I might check the name against their payment card, or question their holding of the railcard if it said Mr X and it was a woman travelling alone who handed it to me.

And they are entirely appropriate checks. Exactly the same as you may do with a Network Railcard.

 

[fowler9]

And they are entirely appropriate checks. Exactly the same as you may do with a Network Railcard.

Honestly mate they really aren't entirely appropriate checks if you mean asking someone what their disability is.