Court of Appeal rules that disabled people have no right to spaces created specifically for them

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Medium of Death**

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

Mr Paulley was awarded £5,500 damages.

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."

line break
Clive Coleman, legal correspondent, BBC News

The net effect of this ruling is that if someone refuses to move from that designated, disabled, wheelchair-user bay on a bus or train then that is that.

The disabled wheelchair user will simply have to wait for the next bus or train.

Doug Paulley's lawyers have already sought a leave to appeal to the supreme court, the highest court in the land, for them to make a ruling on an issue which is of enormous importance to many, many disabled people in particular.

line break
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."

Lady Justice Arden she did not underestimate the difficulties of travel for wheelchair users "or their frustration at the pace of change".

Andy Cole, of Leonard Cheshire Disability said, the charity was disappointed with the judgement and it did not provide "clarity and certainty for disabled bus passengers that the space they need will definitely be made available".

Mr Cole said if the case moved to the Supreme Court he hoped any judgement would provide that certainty.

What an utter joke. Yet more money wasted on fighting ridiculous court decisions.

First Bus confirmed for scum.

Absolutely furious.

**SilverMK2**

Hopefully this means that I can drive without issue in bus lanes and other places designated for other road users (and hell, pedestrians!) while in my car

**Inquisitor Lord Bane**

If the bus was full and there wasn't anywhere else for her to go, thats understandable. "Sorry mate, we're full, gonna have to catch the next one." But if she simply didn't want to move because of a sleeping child (read: laziness), and the company backs her, screw them, gakky human beings all around

**Kilkrazy**

Key points here...

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."

Of course the decision goes both ways. Sometimes a wheelchair user will be on the bus and can refuse to give up his space for a pushchair.

**Medium of Death**

It's a disabled space. A buggy can be folded.

I'm sorry that people see some kind of comparison between a wheelchair user and the inconvenience of having to fold a buggy.

It's yet another inconvenience in the lives of disabled people that would only result in a small inconvenience for able bodied people. Oh, you can't use your legs? Well I don't feel like folding this buggy down.

If he thinks people won't act selfishly when they aren't obliged to do something then the judge obviously hasn't used public transport or spent time much time among the people he makes decisions for.

Why should First Bus not have to cater to the need of its disabled customers when most other businesses do?

**Overread**

I can see the justification for this and the reason why the Judge didn't want to enforce spaces set for Disabled people to be "always" applicable.

A full train or one where existing passengers (not disabled) are already using the disabled space and have no space to move to (save to leave the train) should indeed not be expected to vacate the train to allow the disabled person access. The disabled person simply has to wait for the next train - much like if you've large amounts of luggage, people or bikes and can't fit on the train you have to wait for the next one.

It is one of those grey areas though which is open to abuse on both sides; and certainly is ruled more so by social values than the pure letter of the law (since to do such would create a very complex legal situation). In that light it would seem fair to come down with the ruling that they have.

I do wonder if some kind of provision such as "unless there is suitable space for the person to move to upon the same vehicle" or some such might have been more fair. At the very least such a line would prevent the few from abusing this new ruling to be abusive to disabled users by deliberately blocking the disabled area. However I suspect that the ruling applies nationally and that service providers are still allowed to have their own rulings and policies for making space upon the vehicle (ergo you can take up the disabled spot, but whilst the disabled user has no legal "right" to the spot the train/bus company has the right to move you on if there is suitable space elsewhere).

**filbert**

The salient point is that we shouldn't need legislation telling people to not be dicks and take up disabled spaces. Unfortunately, it is a bit of a sad indictment on our society that someone should feel the need to go to court in order to clarify this.

Both my parents are disabled and I have seen examples of this time and time again - it really boils my piss when I see people who are clearly able-bodied park in cripple spaces in the supermarket but it is a fact of life; people are lazy and selfish. Would that I could wish crippling anal cancer on them so they could get just a small measure of what it is like to struggle as a disabled person but sadly, relying on a sense of empathy is all there is and for some it is much lacking.

**AndrewC**

For once the judge seems to have applied some common sense. While I have sympathy for the passenger who was unable to board the bus, there was already a paying passenger on the bus, it is unfortunate that they also had a pushchair with them that contained a sleeping child.

I have seen it from the other perspective when people with prams are refused because of lack of space on buses and trains.

Sometimes life sucks, but in this case it sucks equally for all.

Cheers

Andrew

**Da Boss**

Nah, I wouldn't see it the same way. Like previous posters have said, the disabled person can't just fold up their disability and put it into the overhead storage and take a seat. If the baby has to wake up, that'll be inconvenient, but I imagine travelling long distances with a disability is already very unpleasant, so I think that lady was in the wrong for refusing the move.

In two minds about whether it needs to be legislated for, though.

**streamdragon**

AndrewC wrote:
For once the judge seems to have applied some common sense. While I have sympathy for the passenger who was unable to board the bus, there was already a paying passenger on the bus, it is unfortunate that they also had a pushchair with them that contained a sleeping child.

I have seen it from the other perspective when people with prams are refused because of lack of space on buses and trains.

Sometimes life sucks, but in this case it sucks equally for all.

Cheers

Andrew

There would have been space if she had collapsed her 'pram' and picked up her baby. She simply refused because her pwecious widdle fing was sweepy time.

You decided to spawn, good for you. Contrary to parental belief, however, the rest of the world does still exist and does not, in fact, revolve around your larvae.

**AndrewC**

And you've never been on a long bus journey with a screaming child in your ear.....

Cheers

Andrew

**streamdragon**

No, just an 8 hour cross country flight. But hey, don't let the fact that you know nothing about me stop you from making snap judgments!

**AndrewC**

Da Boss wrote:
Nah, I wouldn't see it the same way. Like previous posters have said, the disabled person can't just fold up their disability and put it into the overhead storage and take a seat. If the baby has to wake up, that'll be inconvenient, but I imagine travelling long distances with a disability is already very unpleasant, so I think that lady was in the wrong for refusing the move.

In two minds about whether it needs to be legislated for, though.

You're right, the lady was morally wrong not to make the effort to allow the wheelchair access. So why sue the bus company?

cheers

Andrew

Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
No, just an 8 hour cross country flight. But hey, don't let the fact that you know nothing about me stop you from making snap judgments!

And this is why we need and irony emoticon. Did you not notice the extended dots?

And talking of snap judgements, how do we know the pushchair could collapse?

Cheers

Andrew

**Da Boss**

The bus company could have told her she had to do it if she wanted to continue using the service. But I agree, suing the bus company isn't maybe the best route, but I don't see many other ways for the guy to get his voice heard about this.

**Chongara**

I'm not really familiar with how things work in the UK. Does the bus company have the authority to physically force her from the space? If they do what's the liability if she or another injured by another passenger when she resists? It seems like their hands are rather tied short of involving the police in the matter.

**Da Boss**

That is what they would probably have to do, yeah. They'd probably have to ask her, and if she refused, refund her the remainder of her journey and ask her to leave the bus. If she still refused, they would call the police.

**AndrewC**

Da Boss wrote:
The bus company could have told her she had to do it if she wanted to continue using the service. But I agree, suing the bus company isn't maybe the best route, but I don't see many other ways for the guy to get his voice heard about this.

There probably isn't any other way to get his voice heard in this matter, but this issue is about one persons rudeness to another, not the rsponsibilities of the bus company. They had already provided lowered access ways, and a clear space on the bus for wheelchairs/buggies, and I use that term because that's what most of the are labeled as. They had already met the requirements of the various disability acts. The driver did ask the mother to move, she refused. What does he do?

Cheers

Andrew

**Chongara**

Da Boss wrote:
That is what they would probably have to do, yeah. They'd probably have to ask her, and if she refused, refund her the remainder of her journey and ask her to leave the bus. If she still refused, they would call the police.

Refund? That seems asinine. She got what she paid for - a seat and wanted more, the wheelchair bay. It seems silly to give her a refund because she wanted more and better services for free.

Really it seems the wiser regulatory call here would be to simply bar all passengers without the proper certification from entering the space at all. That is if you're not in a wheelchair and you don't have ceritifcation of your condition you're barred from putting yourself or your possessions there in the first place. If the space is for wheelchairs fill it only with wheelchairs, it's a wheelchair space.

**AndrewC**

Da Boss wrote:
That is what they would probably have to do, yeah. They'd probably have to ask her, and if she refused, refund her the remainder of her journey and ask her to leave the bus. If she still refused, they would call the police.

But she has done nothing illegal. The police won't get involved, then again this would be a solved crime for their records, so yeah get SWAT to assault the bus.

They can't throw her off the bus, she has a valid ticket to travel against a passenger who didn't. So the bus company gets sued by a distraught mother.

Cheers

Andrew

**Chongara**

AndrewC wrote:
Da Boss wrote:
That is what they would probably have to do, yeah. They'd probably have to ask her, and if she refused, refund her the remainder of her journey and ask her to leave the bus. If she still refused, they would call the police.

But she has done nothing illegal. The police won't get involved, then again this would be a solved crime for their records, so yeah get SWAT to assault the bus.

They can't throw her off the bus, she has a valid ticket to travel against a passenger who didn't. So the bus company gets sued by a distraught mother.

Cheers

Andrew

Then make it a crime. Put anything in the wheelchair bay get hit with $1,000 fine and 5 days jail time. That makes it a police matter.

It's not that quite severe here in the US, but the police can certainly kick someone off the bus. I know people who have been pulled off buses by cops here.

**AndrewC**

The problem Chongara is that the disability laws require business owners to provide access and facilities for disabled people. But there are no laws from preventing able bodied people from using them.

Cheers

Andrew

**Da Boss**

They can ask anyone to leave the bus at any time they want for antisocial behaviour, which is the very definition of what she was engaging in.

She doesn't have a fundamental legal right to their services just because she bought a ticket, and they could always refund her.

Used to work for a bus company and this was the standard procedure for when people were antisocial on buses, though we never had someone treat a disabled person like this, thankfully. Usually, the threat of police action and the fact that the bus will not move until it is resolved gets the antisocial person to rectify their behaviour. There is a lot the bus company can do to put pressure on customers to behave themselves properly.

**Frazzled**

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
If the bus was full and there wasn't anywhere else for her to go, thats understandable. "Sorry mate, we're full, gonna have to catch the next one." But if she simply didn't want to move because of a sleeping child (read: laziness), and the company backs her, screw them, gakky human beings all around

Wheelchair guy needs to check his wheel chair privilege.

I feel for the bus driver, who has to deal with this. I remember once the lift mechanism was being difficult and the guy started shouting at the bus driver. Bad move as the bus was being ridden by not only a Harris County Sheriff but also Houston Police sergeant. They collectively tore him a new one and threw him right back off.

**AndrewC**

Da Boss wrote:
They can ask anyone to leave the bus at any time they want for antisocial behaviour, which is the very definition of what she was engaging in.

She doesn't have a fundamental legal right to their services just because she bought a ticket, and they could always refund her.

Used to work for a bus company and this was the standard procedure for when people were antisocial on buses, though we never had someone treat a disabled person like this, thankfully. Usually, the threat of police action and the fact that the bus will not move until it is resolved gets the antisocial person to rectify their behaviour. There is a lot the bus company can do to put pressure on customers to behave themselves properly.

But is that a German bus company or a UK one?

Cheers

Andrew

**Da Boss**

Irish bus company, but the basis for the laws is the same so I imagine it is similar in the UK.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:
That is what they would probably have to do, yeah. They'd probably have to ask her, and if she refused, refund her the remainder of her journey and ask her to leave the bus. If she still refused, they would call the police.

So two people are kicked off because of one? Spock not pleased.

**Da Boss**

Yep, two people are kicked off because one of them is antisocial.

**Chongara**

Da Boss wrote:
Yep, two people are kicked off because one of them is antisocial.

Well, we could always let the baby stay. Plenty of people looking to adopt these days.

**Frazzled**

Da Boss wrote:
Yep, two people are kicked off because one of them is antisocial.

Its not a law. Screw em, and by that I mean, I aint messin with no baby mamma! I didn't survive hyenadons by being a fool.

**AndrewC**

Da Boss wrote:
Irish bus company, but the basis for the laws is the same so I imagine it is similar in the UK.

In which case there may be a conflict with the consumer/trading laws which also cover travel tickets. i do know from my time in Germany that the laws were different from the UK laws, which is why I asked. Irish laws as opposed to NI laws may again be different. The basis may be the same, but the small print can be a bugger

Cheers

Andrew