The Supreme Court says drivers should be ‘more bolshie’ dealing with passengers.
It has ruled that drivers must decide if passengers are being reasonable, but that they are not required to clear the wheelchair space in every case.
The ruling has been broadly welcomed by operators and users.
The court heard an appeal about access to designated wheelchair spaces on buses, after action brought by disabled rights and information rights activist Doug Paulley. It over-turned a decision to pay Mr Paulley damages.
The ruling
Lord Neuberger, the Supreme Court’s president, said that Mr Paulley’s appeal was being allowed, but only to the limited extent that FirstGroup’s policy requiring a driver to simply request a non-wheelchair user to vacate the space without taking any further steps was unjustified.
Where a driver who has made such a request concludes that such a refusal is unreasonable, he or she should consider some further step to pressurise the non-wheelchair user to vacate the space, depending on the circumstances, he says.
Industry view
Simon Posner, the Confederation of Passenger Transport’s CEO said: “We welcome this decision and the clarification it provides over the priority for access to wheelchair spaces on our buses.
“The ruling confirms that our drivers are not legally required to remove (from the vehicle) non-wheelchair passengers occupying the designated wheelchair space.
“This is something that we were particularly keen for the Court to address.
“This ruling is very much in keeping with the industry’s own views and ongoing commitment to ensuring that all passengers are able use their local bus services, and enjoy a safe and comfortable journey.”
Mr Posner added: “The world has already moved on since this incident occurred and operators will now consider if further changes are needed to follow the Court’s ruling.”
Mr Paulley’s supporters
The Equality and Human Rights Commission, which supported Mr Paulley at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, described the latest decision in the case as “a victory for disabled people’s rights” and “a hugely important decision, which has helped clarify the current state of the law, and will give confidence to thousands of disabled people in Britain to use public transport.”
Chairman David Isaac said: “Public transport is essential for disabled people to live independently, yet bus companies have not made it easy for this to happen.
“This is a victory for disabled people’s rights. The success of this case means bus companies will have to end ‘first come, first served’ policies, increasing peace of mind for disabled people.
“This has been about correcting a confusing policy which has caused untold problems for disabled people.
“For years, wheelchair users have been deterred from using vital public transport links because they could not be sure they will be able to get on. This judgment will make that easier.”
He said the court had suggested that the law should be reconsidered in order to provide much-needed clarity for bus companies and their customers, and that the commission “will be pressing the Government to commit to these changes in the Bus Services Bill.”
Mr Paulley's solicitor, Chris Fry, said the ruling had fallen short: "The judgement should have gone further – there's no right as things currently stand to force someone off a bus. So it goes as far as that, but not that far yet."
First’s reaction
Following the Supreme Court’s judgment on the priority use of wheelchair spaces on buses, Managing Director of First Bus, Giles Fearnley said: “We welcome the decision from the Supreme Court.
“It has ruled that bus drivers are not required to remove customers from vehicles, which was a key issue for us. This provides welcome clarity for bus operators, our drivers and our customers.
“This was clearly a difficult case for the Supreme Court with six different judgments, and we look forward to receiving further clarity around the decision when the Court publishes its Order. In response, we will implement any necessary changes.
“We recognise how important it is that bus services are accessible for all customers and we lead the industry in improving bus travel for customers with all disabilities. We are therefore also pleased that the Supreme Court found that we did not discriminate against Mr Paulley.”
Background
Wheelchair user Doug Paulley, of Wetherby, West Yorkshire, took legal action in a series of court cases against First, claiming its policy was discriminatory.
It followed an incident in 2012 when he could not board a First bus as a buggy user refused to leave the designated wheelchair space, despite being asked to by the driver. As a result he missed a train, which meant he was late for lunch with his parents, and he claimed £5,000 damages.
She said her child was sleeping and she claimed that the buggy would not fold.
A sign by the space read “Please give up this space if needed for a wheelchair user”
Mr Paulley argued that under the Equality Act 2010 (which replaced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995) First is required to ensure that the wheelchair space is always available.
First had a policy of “requesting but not requiring” non-disabled travellers, including those with babies and pushchairs, to vacate the space if it is needed by a wheelchair user.
First said that its policy complied with the law, and it could not forcibly remove passengers who refused to comply, as the law does not specifically make it a criminal offence for a non-wheelchair user to occupy the space. Therefore there are no legal powers of ‘eviction’.
A judge at Leeds County Court ruled in 2013 that the policy breached First’s duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make “reasonable adjustments” for disabled people.
Recorder Paul Isaacs said the bus company policy should have “required” the woman to move and the wheelchair user’s right to priority should have been enforced.
That decision was appealed by First, and the recorder’s judgment was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2014, which ruled that such a policy would not strike a fair balance between the needs of wheelchair users and the needs of other passengers who might be vulnerable.
It also ruled that this policy would also be liable to give rise to confrontation and delayed journeys.
Mr Paulley, then took his fight before seven justices – Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson – at the UK’s highest court. The case was heard on 15 June 2016, and the judgement delivered on 18 January.
Current policy
The current First Bus policy around the priority use of the wheelchair space on its vehicles is to ask other customers in the strongest polite terms to make way for a passenger in a wheelchair who needs the space.
As part of its commitment to improve customer service it continues to work with Disability Action Alliance, RNIB, the Alzheimers Society and other disability groups to understand how it can provide better services.
First Bus has also invested £300m in nearly 1,600 new buses in the last four years. All its new buses come fitted with extra space for wheelchairs and buggies as standard, as well as extra grab-rails, which benefits all its customers.
Passenger watchdog reaction
Anthony Smith, CEO of the independent watchdog Transport Focus, said: “Passengers will welcome today’s long awaited Supreme Court decision. Bus drivers now need to be provided with adequate support and training to help passengers.
“Bus operators will also need to communicate to passengers how this ruling will work in practice to allow priority spaces to be accessible to wheelchair users.”
Sending a message
Richard Lane, Head of Communications at disability charity Scope, says: “This is an important milestone. It’s a victory for common sense, and disabled customers will now want to see action from travel companies.
“Wheelchair spaces on buses exist because of a sustained campaign by disabled people. But today many wheelchair users still face difficulties accessing the spaces on buses, often causing a great deal of distress.
“Most people don’t realise just how difficult it is for disabled people to get around, to get to the shops, or to visit friends. These spaces are often a lifeline into work and the local community.
“This ruling sends a clear message to transport providers right across the country that they have a responsibility to make travel easier and more comfortable for all of their customers.”
Mexican Standoff?
What should happen in future was outlined in the judgement.
The Supreme Court, said Lord Neuberger, ruled that First “cannot be criticised for choosing not to express the notice [displayed by the wheelchair space] in more forceful terms.
“It did require non-wheelchair users to vacate the sapce, albeit politely, and there is evidence that polite notices are more effective.”
He added: “The suggestion that the notice [displayed in 2012] should state that priority of wheelchair users ‘would be enforced’ would be false.”
However, it was “not enough” for First to instruct its drivers “simply to request non-wheelchair users to vacate the space and do nothing further if the request was rejected.”
The court says: “The approach of the driver must depend upon the circumstances, but where he or she concludes that the refusal is unreasonable, some further step to pressurise the non-wheelchair user to move should be considered, such as rephrasing the request as a requirement (especially where the non-wheelchair user could move elsewhere in the bus) or even a refusal to drive on for several minutes.”
The Supreme Court says that the hearing in Leeds “did not specifically consider whether, if First had simply required its drivers to be more forceful, there was a prospect that it would have made a difference in this case.”
However, details of this hearing, as published in the full judgement, suggest that not only was the driver tactful in the way that he dealt with the incident, the woman involved had dug her heels in and was not indicating in any way that she was prepared to move.
Commentators suggest that while the point of law being argued in court might change future issues, in this particular case, given the woman’s attitude, Mr Paulley would still have missed his connecting train, as a ‘Mexican standoff’ is likely to have resulted.
Union chips in
The RMT welcomed the ruling and Mick Cash, RMT General Secretary, said: “This decision iis a great result for disabled passengers rights.
“RMT will continue to fight until all disabled people can travel with the same freedom and independence as everyone else.
“By ruling that FirstGroup's policy of requiring a driver to simply request a non-wheelchair user to vacate the space without taking any further steps was unjustified shows that it is not the responsibility of disabled passengers to fight discrimination but the companies offering the service.
“This judgement has serious implications not only for all bus companies but also all those train companies who are disadvantaging disabled people using their services every day. It also reinforces RMT's case for staffing levels that enable people with disabilities equal access to the transport network.”
FIND OUT MORE
Watch the Supreme Court deliver its judgement here (5 minutes)
Read the full judgement here
Read routeONE’s comment here
What you think – readers’ letters here
Read Doug Paulley’s blog here
