Train canceled and replaced with replacement bus

[philthetube]

I am sorry to hear of the issues / challenges the OP faces.

Going slightly OT but to assist them I wonder if the OP has notified the airline, (presumably they are travelling by air), of their condition so that the airline can provide a suitable alternative in the event that the aircraft operates to / from a stand that requires bussing to / from the airport terminal.

I suspect that the airline will have difficulty in accepting that someone who is too nervous to travel by bus is able to fly.

 

[Titfield]

I suspect that the airline will have difficulty in accepting that someone who is too nervous to travel by bus is able to fly.

Yes agreed but I am sure the cabin crew and ground staff would not want to face someone refusing to disembark on arrival because the passenger has to get a bus to the terminal.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes agreed but I am sure the cabin crew and ground staff would not want to face someone refusing to disembark on arrival because the passenger has to get a bus to the terminal.

That’s very often unavoidable.

It’s not clear if the OP’s anxiety stems from “literally not being able to go on any bus” or “unable to take timetables buses due to unreliability and anxiety about whether it’ll run”.

 

[danielcanning]

Indeed the Equality Act is unlikely to force a train company to provide a taxi if the OP feels too anxious on a bus.

I disagree, the Equality Act requires reasonable adjustments to be made for disabilities, a train company providing a taxi for someone with a diagnosed condition seems entirely reasonable....

 

[Flying Snail]

I disagree, the Equality Act requires reasonable adjustments to be made for disabilities, a train company providing a taxi for someone with a diagnosed condition seems entirely reasonable....

Spending a multiple of the ticket cost on a taxi for someone who is taking a train to an airport to fly on an airplane but insists they cannot get on a bus due to "disability" is the very definition of unreasonable and should not be entertained.

 

[danielcanning]

Spending a multiple of the ticket cost on a taxi for someone who is taking a train to an airport to fly on an airplane but insists they cannot get on a bus due to "disability" is the very definition of unreasonable and should not be entertained.

I wouldn't be so sure of that, if the OP has a documented history of extreme anxiety then the train operator is on thin ice if they refuse a taxi. Anxiety can manifest itself in many different ways, just because they feel comfortable on an aircraft doesn't mean they'll be on a bus.

 

[Horizon22]

I disagree, the Equality Act requires reasonable adjustments to be made for disabilities, a train company providing a taxi for someone with a diagnosed condition seems entirely reasonable....

Is it reasonable considering the number of potential people who could have an issues with a replacement bus service? As an one-off potentially a taxi could be provided, but it would be an interesting precedent. I am not sure why a bus isn't "really accessible" for the OP whilst other transport methods are fine, although I appreciate it is sensitive subject and they may not wish to elaborate.

If it was an unplanned change due to disruption I could see how this could trigger the OP's condition, but it is a planned itenary with timings which I would hope would alleviate concerns.

 

[danielcanning]

Is it reasonable considering the number of potential people who could have an issues with a replacement bus service? As an one-off potentially a taxi could be provided, but it would be an interesting precedent.

I would say if the person requiring a taxi provide proof (for example with a PIP entitlement letter) that their anxiety is so debilitating that they couldn't use the replacement bus service then yes it would count as reasonable, of course I'm not suggesting that just anyone can turn up at the station demanding a taxi...

 

[Horizon22]

I would say if the person requiring a taxi provide proof (for example with a PIP entitlement letter) that their anxiety is so debilitating that they couldn't use the replacement bus service then yes it would count as reasonable, of course I'm not suggesting that just anyone can turn up at the station demanding a taxi...

That's might be OK, but as I said it could be an interesting precedent. Just because someone has a disability does not them being able to do certain things, and to presume that is equally as damaging. Someone else with anxiety may have no issues with a replacement bus.

 

[danielcanning]

That's might be OK, but as I said it could be an interesting precedent. Just because someone has a disability does not them being able to do certain things, and to presume that is equally as damaging. Someone else with anxiety may have no issues with a replacement bus.

Which is why I suggested a PIP statement of entitlement, you can score maximum points for the mobility award because of anxiety and the inability to use public transport because of it...

 

[Llanigraham]

I disagree, the Equality Act requires reasonable adjustments to be made for disabilities, a train company providing a taxi for someone with a diagnosed condition seems entirely reasonable....

It also states "WHERE REASONABLE" before those words.
What the OP was asking for was not reasonable.

 

[danielcanning]

It also states "WHERE REASONABLE" before those words.
What the OP was asking for was not reasonable.

Show me how ordering a taxi for someone who has a diagnosed case of anxiety so severe that they cannot use a bus would be considered unreasonable, especially if that person had evidence on them proving that fact.

 

[island]

The cost of the adjustment will be one of the factors to be considered in assessing whether said adjustment is reasonable or not.

 

[Watershed]

Spending a multiple of the ticket cost on a taxi for someone who is taking a train to an airport to fly on an airplane but insists they cannot get on a bus due to "disability" is the very definition of unreasonable and should not be entertained.

The mere fact that it's a multiple of the ticket cost doesn't inherently make it unreasonable. I'm sure everyone would accept that providing a taxi for a passenger using a wheelchair would be reasonable in certain cases, notwithstanding the fact that it might cost many times the ticket price.

This would ultimately be a matter for the judge to decide in any claim that someone brought. The outcome is likely to depend on the individual circumstances of the case, so I don't think it's possible to definitively say what it would be.

I would say if the person requiring a taxi provide proof (for example with a PIP entitlement letter) that their anxiety is so debilitating that they couldn't use the replacement bus service then yes it would count as reasonable, of course I'm not suggesting that just anyone can turn up at the station demanding a taxi...

There is no requirement to provide proof of the disability for the provisions of the Equality Act to apply. Though it may, in practice, increase the likelihood of a request for reasonable adjustments being met.

 

[Starmill]

Sorry if my pedantry upset you, but your implication was GA were at fault which simply isn’t the case. No need to lecture me on the process either, which incidentally isn’t quite correct (NR don’t simply upload what GA tells them unless there’s no time to validate) but I’ll not upset you further.

The OP doesn't appear to have stipulated from whom they bought their ticket, however, I think that we can assume with some confidence that it was an authorised retailer, and possibly even Greater Anglia themselves. A timetable cannot be pushed to retail without Greater Anglia producing it, so either they put a timetable on sale which they knew was wrong, or the alterations were late. If there were doubt about the schedule then it should be unadvertised, as this prevents any retailing against it. And if Network Rail try to get access too late, after tickets have already been available for retail, they should expect objections, and the block may be declined. Regardless of which of these particular elements is the true root cause in this case, they're faults with the internal process at Greater Anglia, by definition.

The customer isn't due anything from Network Rail about this issue, nor can they realistically expect to receive explanations from them about why it is so. The only body they could complain to or even contact about the problem is the operator of the train on which they were due to travel. Would it be genuinely relevant therefore even if it actually were the fault of a third party? It's not really tenable for any business to accept payment for a service and then fundamentally change it purely on the basis of "our supplier has let us down".

The mere fact that it's a multiple of the ticket cost doesn't inherently make it unreasonable. I'm sure everyone would accept that providing a taxi for a passenger using a wheelchair would be reasonable in certain cases, notwithstanding the fact that it might cost many times the ticket price.

I agree. The cost is still relevant to whether or not making the adjustment is proportional, but the company cannot expect to be able to rely on an argument that the adjustment would cause them a very large commercial loss on the sale. If they wish to protect themselves against the risks of such losses, then they should ensure that they (and other authorised sellers) don't retail against schedules which aren't realistic.

 

[snowball]

Not very relevant to the gist of the thread but I think this was the reason for the closure:

Network Rail thanks passengers and residents after six days of work over the railway in Broxbourne

A vital bridge replacement project has taken a major step forward, following six days of intensive work over the main line between London, Hertfordshire, Essex and Cambridgeshire.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

A vital bridge replacement project has taken a major step forward, following six days of intensive work over the main line between London, Hertfordshire, Essex and Cambridgeshire.

Network Rail is replacing the central spans of Nazeing New Road bridge in Broxbourne during a four-month road closure, but the main work over the railway took place between 13 and 18 January.

Trains couldn’t run under the bridge while this critical phase of the works was carried out, so there were rail replacement buses on some routes and alternative travel options for other journeys.

Engineers from Network Rail’s contractor, J Murphy and Sons, successfully achieved a number of important project milestones during the six days. They:

dug out the road over the central part of the bridge
lifted out the structure of the old bridge
put in the structure of the new bridge

Although the railway reopened on time on Thursday 19 January, the bridge remains closed to road users until Sunday 30 April. This is because there is still lots of work for the engineers to do, including:

pouring, curing and waterproofing the new concrete bridge deck
putting the road and pavement back
reinstalling the gas, electricity and internet connections that run across the bridge (these are currently redirected over a temporary structure)
strengthening other parts of the bridge, which will help to avoid the need for additional major work in future

The work is vital to keep passengers, drivers and pedestrians safe, and to avoid a more disruptive closure at short notice. Despite remedial works being carried out between 2010-14, the old bridge continued to deteriorate and reached the end of its useful life.

The new bridge is designed to last 120 years.

Pedestrian and vehicle diversionary routes are signposted while the road is closed.