A wheelchair user in Wetherby wanted to travel by bus, but couldn't because a mother with a pushchair would not vacate the wheelchair space. The bus driver only requested for her to move and she refused, so the wheelchair user couldn't travel. Today a judge at Leeds County Court has ruled that situation in breach of the Equality Act 2010 and First have had to pay damages to the man who couldn't travel. Full story at the Guardian.
More bus cuts are on the way due to council funding cuts in Hampshire, Derbyshire and elsewhere. One letter-writer to the Derbyshire Times blames pensioners' passes for making so many routes unviable, a point that this blog has made before.
You may have made the point before, but you are still wrong! Your argument seems to be that bus companies are not being reimbursed for the "true cost" of carrying "OAPs" (by which I think you mean passholders) and that therefore fares are being increased to cover the shortfall leading to falling ridership and hence fewer buses.
ReplyDeleteThe legal requirement on councils and bus companies is not that the latter should receive the "true cost" of carrying passholders - how on earth could that be calculated? - but that they be "no better nor no worse off" through participating in the pass scheme. If bus companies feel that they are receiving inadequate reimbursement they can challenge the councils concerned. Not easy to prove of course (for either side) but the fact that not even the likes of First and Stagecoach have actually challenged anyone suggests that, on balance, they see the concessionary passes as a good thing.
Of course, if any passholder feels that they should have to either pay for a pass or pay a nominal fare each time they use it there is nothing to stop them doing so. Should they feel that £20 is the right amount then just pay £20 worth of fares each year. If they think a 50p fare per journey is right then count up the journeys until they amount to, say, £10 and then pay £10 worth of fares.
I won't be doing either, because I know that a high proportion of the journeys I make with my pass just wouldn't be made if I had to pay (because the fares are so high) so whatever the bus company gets from my local council it is "better off" because it wouldn't have got a penny from me!
"The legal requirement on councils and bus companies is not that the latter should receive the "true cost" of carrying passholders - how on earth could that be calculated? - but that they be "no better nor no worse off" through participating in the pass scheme. If bus companies feel that they are receiving inadequate reimbursement they can challenge the councils concerned. Not easy to prove of course (for either side) but the fact that not even the likes of First and Stagecoach have actually challenged anyone suggests that, on balance, they see the concessionary passes as a good thing".
DeleteSo . . . . if a bus company carries an passholder without payment of a fare worth £2, they should receive £2? That's "no better no worse" to the nth degree. In practice, the payment that the bus company receives should be calculated at around 70% of the fare foregone; this is because it is estimated that the passholder would not have made all their journeys if they'd been required to pay the appropriate fare. All well and good so far; bus companies actually agree with this, hence it wasn't challenged.
However, central Government initially funded the reimbursement from central funds, but then lumped the money into the total support grant to local authorities without ring-fencing the money. Local councils now have to meet all the calls on their purses whilst dealing with reduced funding from central Government and without being able to increase local taxes. So . . . . in practice, reimbursement is now down to around 50% of fares foregone (instead of 70%) in most councils, with further cuts either announced or forthcoming.
None of the big bus operators have challenged this . . . what's the point? Either they spend money challenging and win, in which case councils will play the "no meals on wheels" card, and the bus company loses; or they lose in court, and are out of pocket for no benefit. That's lose - lose!!
You've admitted that you wouldn't travel because fares are so high. A bus company is a business. Let's just say that one trip on Route 555 needs (say) £100 income to cover all costs. 50% of passengers are passholders, and the revenue for those passengers is reduced by 20%. What is the bus company to do? Obvious really . . . increase the fares charged to the other 50% of passengers. That's what "business" does, so why should a bus company do any differently?
It really is time, as required by the Transport Act 1985, as devised by the un-lamented Nicholas Ridley, that everyone realises that buses are NOT a social service, but a business that is operating under ever-increasing political interference (but with politicians denying any involvement).
I'm glad I'm nearing retirement now; 10 years in the public sector, 30 in the private sector . . . . . I'd rather not go back to the public sector for my last 5 years, thanks!!
If you went back to the public sector you might now find the political interference (insistence on being right no matter what - and always blame the officer) a larger cross to bear than you would wish to bear!
DeleteI was glad to move the other way!
A very interesting case as reported by the Guardian.
ReplyDeleteI sympathise with First, and fully agree that, "the requirement unnecessarily encourages confrontation and is unenforceable." What, in this instance, could actually have been done? If the woman refused to move the pushchair, was the driver supposed to call the police to forcibly remove it?
I found other points rather worrying. Did a guy who couldn't catch a bus really receive £5,500 in damages? How was this sum arrived at? Also, I wish I could view such a sum as "relatively modest" as does Martin Chamberlain QC. That'll teach me to work in the bus and coach industry instead of pursuing a legal career!
The BBC report on this story stated, "the onus should be on the bus companies to provide suitable transport for all." Such a naive view causes me some concern. If this ruling is upheld on appeal, I can honestly see buses operating with an area physically fenced off for all users except those who are disabled.
My view is it is first come first served. In many cases it is impossible to move a buggy because the bus is rammed packed. It also exposes the bus company to a claim should they throw someone of the bus as a contract has been made to carry the passenger
ReplyDeleteThe court case has now been decided and has come to the only sensible decision and that is no one has priority it is basically first come first served
ReplyDeleteThe driver can ask people to move but there is no requirement for them to do so
I agree that it's a sensible decision, but sadly not everyone agrees, and I understand that Mr. Paulley intends to appeal to the supreme court.
DeleteLet's hope he has to repay the ridiculously high amount of compensation back. He'll get disability living allowance regardless of other income he has; isn't that enough for him?
Delete