Bus discrimination case

[whole diary]

[trainer]

I was thinking of taking a lawn mower for service on the bus - not a sit-on model. I wondered how this might pan out...

Another wonderfully cutting observation, FT,N.   

[TonyK]

I was thinking of taking a lawn mower for service on the bus - not a sit-on model. I wondered how this might pan out...

Another wonderfully cutting observation, FT,N.   

You can tell me by the way I walk...

[ChrisB]

First Bus won their appeal.....wheelchair has no right of precedence over a pushchair

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30376446

Bus companies are not required by law to force parents with buggies to make way for wheelchair users in designated bays on vehicles, senior judges ruled.

First Bus appealed against a court ruling, won by a disabled man from West Yorkshire, that the firm's wheelchair policy was discriminatory.

Doug Paulley, 36, was denied access to a First bus to Leeds when a woman with a pushchair refused to move.

The court of Appeal overturned a judgement made at Leeds County Court

Wow.

[ChrisB]

That article has now been expanded to include...

'Request not require'
 
Mr Paulley had attempted to board the bus in Wetherby to visit his parents in Leeds, in February 2012.

But, he was told to wait for another one when the woman with the pushchair refused to move because her baby was asleep.

First's policy was one of "requesting but not requiring" non-disabled travellers, including those with babies and pushchairs, to vacate space needed by a wheelchair user.

In September, the county court judge had said the firm's policy was in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Mr Paulley was awarded ^5,500 damages.

'Occasionally prevented'
 
But earlier, judges at the Court of Appeal ruled the "proper remedy" for wheelchair users to get improvements in such cases was to ask parliament.

Lord Justice Lewison said: "The judge seems to me to have thought that the needs of wheelchair users trumped all other considerations.

"If that is what he meant, I respectfully disagree."

Lord Justice Underhill said: "It has to be accepted that our conclusion and reasoning in this case means that wheelchair users will occasionally be prevented by other passengers from using the wheelchair space on the bus.

"I do not, however, believe that the fact that some passengers will - albeit rarely - act selfishly and irresponsibly is a sufficient reason for imposing on bus companies a legal responsibility for a situation which is not of their making and which they are not in a position to prevent."

[chrisr_75]

Another update today, First Bus have won their appeal case:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30376446

Bus companies are not required by law to force parents with buggies to make way for wheelchair users in designated bays on vehicles, senior judges ruled.

First Bus appealed against a court ruling, won by a disabled man from West Yorkshire, that the firm's wheelchair policy was discriminatory.

Doug Paulley, 36, was denied access to a First bus to Leeds when a woman with a pushchair refused to move.

The Court of Appeal overturned a Leeds County Court judgement in his favour.

'Request not require'
 
Mr Paulley had attempted to board the bus in Wetherby to visit his parents in Leeds, in February 2012.

But, he was told to wait for another one when the woman with the pushchair refused to move because her baby was asleep.

First's policy was one of "requesting but not requiring" non-disabled travellers, including those with babies and pushchairs, to vacate space needed by a wheelchair user.

In September, the county court judge had said the firm's policy was in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Mr Paulley was awarded ^5,500 damages.

'Occasionally prevented'
 
But earlier, judges at the Court of Appeal ruled the "proper remedy" for wheelchair users to get improvements in such cases was to ask parliament.

Lord Justice Lewison said: "The judge seems to me to have thought that the needs of wheelchair users trumped all other considerations.

"If that is what he meant, I respectfully disagree."

Lord Justice Underhill said: "It has to be accepted that our conclusion and reasoning in this case means that wheelchair users will occasionally be prevented by other passengers from using the wheelchair space on the bus.

"I do not, however, believe that the fact that some passengers will - albeit rarely - act selfishly and irresponsibly is a sufficient reason for imposing on bus companies a legal responsibility for a situation which is not of their making and which they are not in a position to prevent."

[ChrisB]

Yes, that's what I posted right above yours :-)

[chrisr_75]

Yes, that's what I posted right above yours :-)

Oops, user error, Monday morning...!

[grahame]

Well - the judge said "some passengers will - albeit rarely - act selfishly and irresponsibly", so we may take it that the person with the buggy wasn't exactly being a shining example to others in her(?) actions.   And that (to me) means the whole case is something that really shouldn't have happened.

What is seems to have confirmed is that there IS equality between different groups ... (s)he who gets there first has precedence; no discrimination either way.   Wheelchair first, pram has to wait for next service. Pram first, wheelchair has to wait for next service.  Now - does that extend to cycles on units such as a 150 - cycles first, sorry - no wheelchair here.   Wheelchair first, sorry no cycles?

[Fourbee]

Out of interest how would the ticketing arrangements work for someone who volunteered to leave the bus?

[ChrisB]

What is seems to have confirmed is that there IS equality between different groups ... (s)he who gets there first has precedence; no discrimination either way.   Wheelchair first, pram has to wait for next service. Pram first, wheelchair has to wait for next service.  Now - does that extend to cycles on units such as a 150 - cycles first, sorry - no wheelchair here.   Wheelchair first, sorry no cycles?

If they are meant as dual-role spaces, then yes, I think you have it right - that any cycles can't be forced to move. If they are marked as purely wheelchair spaces, then it would need testing again in court, I suspect, as to whether the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) could be forced to remove said cycles....I suspect it would go the same way, even it were marked for wheelchairs only.

Out of interest how would the ticketing arrangements work for someone who volunteered to leave the bus?

Good question, and one that, in light of the decision, ought to be asked of First Bus....

[chuffed]

I foresee the Law lords having to make a further distinction between a hand propelled wheelchair , a battery operated wheelchair and a mobility scooter.......

[ChrisB]

why? (serious Q)

[plymothian]

So all the bus companies who changed their policy and put up signs because of the first ruling, will now have to take them all down and change policies again.  Then you'll get people 'who know their rights' because they don't know the appeal has been won and there still has been no definitive government ruling. 
This will probably ping-ping back and forth, very much like Sheffield pensioners' free train travel.

[JayMac]

I foresee the Law lords having to make a further distinction between a hand propelled wheelchair , a battery operated wheelchair and a mobility scooter.......

We don't have Law Lords any more. Also, like ChrisB I'm unsure what point you are making.

The case in question may go to the Supreme Court. We may see amendments to the Equality Act should that happen, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

[The Tall Controller]

The bike space on a 150/1 is in a separate area to the wheelchair space. On a 150/2 its the same place. I would think that a human being would get precedence over a recreational piece of machinery.