Paralympian forced to wet herself on train without accessible toilet

[BestWestern]

Yes, in many cases.

Lots of ramps have labels 'only for use by x TOC'. What the penalty would be for a XC guard using an EMT ramp I don't know. Plus some ramps only fit some trains, or not all ramps fit all trains (safely).

That's simply down to certain ramps fitting certain rolling stock. The ever increasing plethora of different designs, and the senseless abandonment of the idea of any sort of standardisation, means some platforms now sport a bewildering array of ramps all lined up, each sporting a list of trains it does or doesn't fit. There shouldn't be any Guard anywhere who has been instructed not to use ramps, but using a ramp on a train it doesn't fit brings the risk of causing serious injury to the user.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think what really does need to change is the lack of personal handoff between staff in accessibility cases. All too often I've seen a wheelchair user looking forlorn and abandoned at Euston rather than the guard having done doors from that coach and introducing them to Network Rail assistance before locking the train up. It really must be stressful for people in that position.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's simply down to certain ramps fitting certain rolling stock. The ever increasing plethora of different designs, and the senseless abandonment of the idea of any sort of standardisation, means some platforms now sport a bewildering array of ramps all lined up, each sporting a list of trains it does or doesn't fit. There shouldn't be any Guard anywhere who has been instructed not to use ramps, but using a ramp on a train it doesn't fit brings the risk of causing serious injury to the user.

The solution to that is surely to carry them on board instead - some TOCs do.

 

[BestWestern]

The solution to that is surely to carry them on board instead - some TOCs do.

Including XC!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Including XC!

<sigh>

I wonder was it one of those few very poor "not my job" XC guards, the same ones who question obviously valid tickets and the likes; there are a couple of known "usual suspects". The same one who there is a video of having a stand up argument with a member of platform staff about whether he'd let a late runner on or not. (He was technically correct, but he had a massive attitude problem in how he handled it).

 

[tspaul26]

Is there an offence of not making reasonable adjustments under son-of-DDA? Or is it a basis for civil cases for compensation only?

Either way they need a heavy clout.

To my knowledge (and I do not profess to be an expert in equality law by any means) there is no offence of failing to make reasonable adjustments.

If there was, it would almost certainly be summary and, therefore, would not set a precedent either.

As far as I can see, the only potential basis of a claim in this case would be a failure to provide information in advance that the lavatory was out of order. I suppose a judge could rule this to be a reasonable adjustment, but it would probably depend on where the chain of communication broke down: if CrossCountry informed the station operators along the route and they did nothing then CrossCountry could conceivably have a successful defence.

I consider it highly unlikely that delaying a train for one passenger to use the lavatory at a station would be considered reasonable given the inconvenience to other passengers and the consequential delays across the network.

All that to one side, I think it is quite clear that CrossCountry has taken a commercial decision not to defend the matter.

If I was advising them, my recommendation would be to pay her and gag her because the PR damage of any court case means that you lose even if you win at trial. No company wants to be dragged through the press (again) as the operator that refused to compensate a disabled woman who soiled herself on its train due to a defective lavatory.

 

[tspaul26]

Incidentally, I was very interested to discover the following:

...assistance shall be provided on condition that the disabled person or person with reduced mobility present him or herself at the designated point at a time stipulated by the railway undertaking or station manager providing such assistance. Any time stipulated shall not be more than 60 minutes before the published departure time or the time at which all passengers are asked to check in. If no time is stipulated by which the disabled person or person with reduced mobility is required to present him or herself, the person shall present him or herself at the designated point at least 30 minutes before the published departure time or the time at which all passengers are asked to check in.

Reg EC 1371/2007, art. 24(e)

 

[BestWestern]

I wo

<sigh>

I wonder was it one of those few very poor "not my job" XC guards, the same ones who question obviously valid tickets and the likes; there are a couple of known "usual suspects". The same one who there is a video of having a stand up argument with a member of platform staff about whether he'd let a late runner on or not. (He was technically correct, but he had a massive attitude problem in how he handled it).

I would hazard a guess that it might have been a simple case of forgetting. It does happen.

 

[infobleep]

London Transport trains have never offered these and those on National Rail offering similar services, London Overground and Crossrail for example, don't either. That's a downgrade for travellers between Paddington and Reading once many or most of the services are Elizabeth Line. The theory is that stops and services are frequent enough that you use a station.

That is fine, as long as every station on the line has a loo and are open. On some metro routes they have stations with loos but as the ticket office is only open for short peirods of time during the week and never at weekends, the loos are locked. The trains themselves don't have loos. On Sundays the gaps between services can be 1 hour too and it's a metro route!

 

[otomous]

It's certainly an issue with DOO if drivers will not and/or cannot deal with it. Special assistance requires personal hand-off[1] at every changeover point, otherwise you will inevitably get too many failures.

It's one reason why I support DOO on Merseyrail and not on other franchises - level boarding with the gap fully bridged changes the game completely and basically removes the need for assistance in almost every case. (For the remaining much more exceptional cases it'd be cheaper to provide a personal chaperone member of staff than a guard on every train).

[1] By that I mean that at any given time one known and named person is responsible for the assistance provided to the person who booked it. If that person cannot find the person to whom that responsibility is to be transferred and conduct the handover in person, they remain responsible, and for example if that is the guard of a train they need to delay the train until the handover can be conducted or an alternative arranged and communicated to the individual, again in person.

I can assure you it's "cannot" not "will not". Drivers are not trained to use the ramps. Imagine the media outcry if an incorrectly placed ramp folded under a person using it, and imagine the consequences for the driver of doing something he was not trained for - maybe even legal ramifications. Furthermore it would cause even bigger delays because the driver would have to locate where help was needed, call the signaller, shut the cab down, find the ramp etc etc. Far simpler just to have a trained guard who can have the ramp out ready on the train and do the job as swiftly as possible. But others knew best.

 

[mpthomson]

No - not joking at all.


What is slightly disturbing about this particular case is why XC paid compensation. Would they have done so if the only toilet on a train had been locked out of use and an able bodied person had soiled themselves? If the answer is no - then it's sending out the wrong message paying compensation on this occasion.

Able bodied people are able to get on and off trains without assistance. This lady wasn't and was therefore basically trapped on the train because of the failings on that particular day.

If they hadn't paid out they'd have been left defending a difficult court case for them, with the associated legal costs, not to mention the reputational damage in terms of media interest as this lady is a paralympian with an MBE (that's down to how the media report, it's not this lady's fault she's more interesting/newsworthy because of who she is). To be honest if she can use her status to highlight that this kind of thing happens when it clearly shouldn't then that's fair enough.

Commercially from XC's point of view, settling out of court, which is what this is rather than being awarded compensation, with a confidentiality agreement attached that says that she can't discuss it further with the media is by far the least worst option.

This incident should clearly never have happened, everyone involved is in agreement on that, and was embarrassing for the person concerned so XC's response isn't inappropriate in any way, it's a sensible solution as long as the procedures are looked at to ensure it doesn't happen again to anyone, be-gonged paralympian or not.

 

[BestWestern]

Commercially from XC's point of view, settling out of court, which is what this is rather than being awarded compensation, with a confidentiality agreement attached that says that she can't discuss it further with the media is by far the least worst option.

I do wonder why the lady concerned chose to accept such a settlement rather than go to court, given that presumably she raised the issue as a matter of principle and not just to chase the money. She could have made a very significant step forwards in the standard of what is acceptable.

 

[AlterEgo]

I wouldn't say trains should be taken out of service without a loo but I do think all new rolling stock should be built with one.

Agreed, with the exception of perhaps a very small number of suburban units like LO’s class 378s, the Tube and so on.

Of course at what point do you stop doing things to help people with disabilities.

When it becomes unreasonable - for example, to make the whole Tube level access would require large parts of it to be substantially rebuilt.

I do wonder why the lady concerned chose to accept such a settlement rather than go to court, given that presumably she raised the issue as a matter of principle and not just to chase the money. She could have made a very significant step forwards in the standard of what is acceptable.

Because going to a civil court would only achieve, er, compensation for her. Unless you think it would achieve anything else?

It wouldn’t achieve anything above what she has already achieved. It’s become very public now and XC have been shamed, and one hopes will amend their practices. That’s the desired outcome.

 

[eMeS]

The paralympian concerned was on a TV chat show a short time ago - ITV, I think ~11am.

 

[mpthomson]

I do wonder why the lady concerned chose to accept such a settlement rather than go to court, given that presumably she raised the issue as a matter of principle and not just to chase the money. She could have made a very significant step forwards in the standard of what is acceptable.

I handle complaints as one aspect of my job. Most complainants are happy that it's been acknowledged (and in this case some recompense for her public embarrassment and distress), that they've received a suitable apology and steps that have been taken to try to ensure that it doesn't happen to someone else. I don't think she would have wanted to go through the media scrutiny of describing soiling herself on a train, particularly in a court where you can't control the questioning.

In addition XC have had to come out publically and say what they've done to address it. This is the best resolution for both parties to be honest.

 

[tspaul26]

I handle complaints as one aspect of my job. Most complainants are happy that it's been acknowledged (and in this case some recompense for her public embarrassment and distress), that they've received a suitable apology and steps that have been taken to try to ensure that it doesn't happen to someone else. I don't think she would have wanted to go through the media scrutiny of describing soiling herself on a train, particularly in a court where you can't control the questioning.

In addition XC have had to come out publically and say what they've done to address it. This is the best resolution for both parties to be honest.

Offering a voluntary remedy also has tactical advantages if it ends up in court especially on the question of costs/expenses.

 

[jon0844]

Mark 4's and some 158's have flush lavatories with retention tanks.

Which overflow when full, and are regularly allowed to travel around in the condition (not being emptied often enough), meaning they spray people when the trains go around curves at speed. In many cases, this is worse than it dumping under the train - but the upside is that I assume the toilets are never out of service inside.

 

[yorksrob]

Which overflow when full, and are regularly allowed to travel around in the condition (not being emptied often enough), meaning they spray people when the trains go around curves at speed. In many cases, this is worse than it dumping under the train - but the upside is that I assume the toilets are never out of service inside.

Quite. These are trains with several toilets which they manage to not empty enough, so you can imagine the situation with a two carriage unit with a single vacuum bog at the end of a long diagram on Northern for example.

At least Northern services aren't likely to travel as fast, or encounter such severe cant as an actual mk4 on the ECML, so spray hazards are likely to be less likely.

 

[BestWestern]

Because going to a civil court would only achieve, er, compensation for her. Unless you think it would achieve anything else?

It wouldn’t achieve anything above what she has already achieved. It’s become very public now and XC have been shamed, and one hopes will amend their practices. That’s the desired outcome.

A court case may have suggested a firmer legal position for the rail industry to follow going forwards. As mentioned above, XC have settled this privately to avoid the matter being subjected to that degree of scrutiny, presumably.

 

[BestWestern]

I handle complaints as one aspect of my job. Most complainants are happy that it's been acknowledged (and in this case some recompense for her public embarrassment and distress), that they've received a suitable apology and steps that have been taken to try to ensure that it doesn't happen to someone else. I don't think she would have wanted to go through the media scrutiny of describing soiling herself on a train, particularly in a court where you can't control the questioning.

In addition XC have had to come out publically and say what they've done to address it. This is the best resolution for both parties to be honest.

Did the media story originate from somebody other than the affected party?

 

[MG11]

<sigh>

I wonder was it one of those few very poor "not my job" XC guards, the same ones who question obviously valid tickets and the likes; there are a couple of known "usual suspects". The same one who there is a video of having a stand up argument with a member of platform staff about whether he'd let a late runner on or not. (He was technically correct, but he had a massive attitude problem in how he handled it).

Is this video available online, i.e. YouTube?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was but I couldn’t find it, sorry.