Read First Group submission to the ORRI'd love to read any barrister's competing opinion.
Read First Group submission to the ORRI'd love to read any barrister's competing opinion.
I would love to, but I'm not aware of it being published anywhere. If I remember correctly, the advice itself was treated as legally privileged and not published?Read First Group submission to the ORR
My barrister's opinion (which I sought separately to and significantly before the ORR, and is independent) says:whilst it is ultimately for the Courts to interpret the legislation, we would consider that a fare has been paid for a journey even if it has been paid to a Train Operating Company rather than the operator of the rail replacement service.
I attach the opinion for interest.In view of the very broad definition of a fare in the 1981 Act it is my opinion that it could encompass a fare that has been paid to a rail operating company for transport by both rail and, where required as a replacement, the bus.
I would agree that a test case would solve the situation, but that will not be required until the derogation expires in April
I thought it was possible to bring a 'friendly' test case at any time if both parties felt that it might be beneficial ?
It would be extremely interesting if a test case were to be brought before the courts on this issue, especially if in parallel with the wheelchair issue.I don't think the requirement for each vehicle used to be accessible is sensible in the slightest and is already resulting in the use of vehicles which are unsuitable for people with far more common disabilities than wheelchair use, namely toilet urgency and back issues
It would be extremely interesting if a test case were to be brought before the courts on this issue, especially if in parallel with the wheelchair issue.
By way of example, my mother-in-law has a medical condition which requires easy access to a toilet. As a result, she will not travel by coach - even where toilet facilities are provided, they are too often locked out of use. If an RRB service is operating when she's planning to visit, the trip gets cancelled outright. If toilet facilities were withdrawn entirely to provide wheelchair accomodation, I imagine a lot more people would take that course of action.
When I first injured my back, I could manage some stairs but not too many and only if there was a handrail on my left, escalators were no problem. I couldn't really walk long distances either, but I was not in a wheelchair. I discovered that many step-free routes involve significantly longer walking distance than the stepped route but there is no way of knowing this in advance. At King's Cross St Pancras, changing from the Victoria line to the Northern line via steps only involves a couple of short flights and short passageways, but the step-free route requires walking basically the length of the complex and half way back again.A similar example to this might be if a new station was being built and access was only by a long wheelchair ramp, with no direct staircase or lift. Great for a wheelchair user, but it may mean someone who can walk but only a very short distance cannot use the station. Yet most people would think "box ticked" - that is not good enough.
This issue wasn't caused by anybody pushing for a change in the law on rail replacement vehicles; it is an existing criminal offence under 20 year old legislation, to operate an inaccessible vehicle on rail replacement services (i.e. one that has prescribed minimum legroom, route displays, handholds for people with walking difficulties, high contrast on surface level changes etc.)the remedy there is to push for a change in the law on accessible taxis, not on RRBs
It's still around, though dilapidated and out of date. Describe Online guide to changing platforms at King's Cross UndergroundThere used to be a great website called "Direct enquiries" that detailed all the routes around all the stations, but it's no longer online.
This issue wasn't caused by anybody pushing for a change in the law on rail replacement vehicles; it is an existing criminal offence under 20 year old legislation, to operate an inaccessible vehicle on rail replacement services (i.e. one that has prescribed minimum legroom, route displays, handholds for people with walking difficulties, high contrast on surface level changes etc.)
Should you disagree with the legislation then there's the standard process to go through to change it, I.e. convince elected representatives to go through the Parliamentary process to change it. That would be you pushing for a change in the law on accessible vehicles rather than the other way round.
Sorry to disagree, but as yet it has not been proven that this is an offence, it is only an opinion
This is a big weakness in our legal system in my view - logic would be if a piece of legislation wasn't clear in what it meant in a given situation that we would return to those who made the legislation to clarify it, or to Parliament to legislate to clarify it. Instead we have lots of very expensive people guessing what a particular badly drafted law means, which can often change over time.
If Parliament were asked, I expect they would come back with a view that the service must be accessible, not each individual vehicle, as that is what is logical to me. For RRBs, the law as it (allegedly) stands is like requiring a wheelchair space to be provided in every coach of a Pendolino, when demand does not dictate this to be anywhere near needed.
I hope the Government will change the law to remove the ambiguity and mandate a pragmatic solution.
B8.2 Substitute transport
Pre-planned
Buses or other substitute transport arranged on a pre-planned basis must be accessible to disabled people.
Where passenger train services are affected by engineering works at short notice, it is recommended that passenger train operators provide accessible buses where reasonably practicable.
Every subsequent Code of Practice, including the current one, has had similar requirements:Financial penalties can be imposed if operators fail to meet these requirements.
Buses or other substitute transport should be accessible to disabled people.
Through the licence system and the station access conditions, passenger train operators are required to submit details of services they will run where there are planned engineering works by Network Rail. It is a requirement of the Regulator that this information is provided at least twelve weeks before the engineering works take place. Passenger train operators should ensure that accessible substitute transport is provided during such engineering works.
TOCs and other industry members have made much of the fact that the industry didn't realise that rail replacement vehicles are subject to PSVAR until my judicial review threat resulted in the ORR soliciting and publishing legal advice. However every TOC has been obliged by its license to be fully aware of the obligation to run accessible RRBs, for at least the last 18 years. Despite this, most TOCs aren't or weren't even aware which, if any, of their services are run with accessible vehicles, and for may TOCs a (sometimes tiny) minority of the rail replacement vehicles are accessible.Where passenger train services are affected by engineering works at short notice, it is recommended that passenger train operators provide accessible buses, where reasonably practicable, at no extra charge.
'Buses or other substitute transport' doesn't seem to preclude accessible taxis being provided for wheelchair users.
The 2002 Statutory Code of Practice: Train and Station Services for Disabled Passengers (attached), written by the Strategic Rail Authority, to which "All licensed passenger train operators and station operators (were) required as a condition of their licence to have due regard", obliged TOCs to use accessible vehicles for all planned engineering work and wherever possible for unplanned.Every subsequent Code of Practice, including the current one, has had similar requirements:TOCs and other industry members have made much of the fact that the industry didn't realise that rail replacement vehicles are subject to PSVAR until my judicial review threat resulted in the ORR soliciting and publishing legal advice. However every TOC has been obliged by its license to be fully aware of the obligation to run accessible RRBs, for at least the last 18 years. Despite this, most TOCs aren't or weren't even aware which, if any, of their services are run with accessible vehicles, and for may TOCs a (sometimes tiny) minority of the rail replacement vehicles are accessible.
I would like to know what TOCs were doing over the past 18 years in order to attempt to comply with this obligation? It looks like "very little to nothing" from my end. And what have the SRA and successors done about this failure?
Today’s (1st March) rail replacement between Truro and Penzance was 100% accessible. Operated entirely by First south west (FSW), as was the previous week long blockade at the same locations over February half term, although the appearance of a team coach Tourismo was the only non psvar vehicle in half term.
FSW have built up a decent sized fleet of psvar coaches as well as being able to call on their bus service fleet.
They have the advantage of a seasonal fleet requirement with RRB work in the quiet season for their own bus/coach needs. Everyone a winner.
However lots of RRB doesn’t have a seasonal operator with spare out of season capacity.
Do dial-a-ride services operate at weekends?
If not then that is a load of fully accessible vehicles with lots of headroom for planned blockades.
I've not seen anybody express that they want that all rail replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible. Where have you heard some people express that? For instance, I have never expressed the wish that all rail replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible. All I want is that both the law, and the Statutory Code of Practice, be adhered to. Neither of which oblige that all rail replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible.If, as some people want, ALL Rail Replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible
The Public Service Vehicle Accessibility Regulations require:(at the expense of other disabilities)
Your hypothetical situation is specious, because to the best of my knowledge nobody has suggested that TOCs should ban the use of inaccessible taxis, and because it is not an offence to use inaccessible taxis. However accepting the insupportable premise that (against all evidence and reason) such a ludicrous rule were implemented, what would happen is that accessible taxis would be called in from out of area. As happened with me the other week, when inaccessible rail replacement coaches in use on the Harrogate line resulted in me being left stuck in my wheelchair in Harrogate after the last bus home. There are never any accessible taxis working in Harrogate on an evening or a weekend.what would happen if the last train of the night was cancelled and only non-wheelchair taxis were available, even though no wheelchair passengers were waiting?
If the view taken by some on this forum is taken as the law of the land, there would be no exception as this would be a criminal offence, and the ramifications for the driver and operator would be catastrophic .If, as some people want, ALL Rail Replacement vehicles must be wheelchair accessible (at the expense of other disabilities) what would happen if the last train of the night was cancelled and only non-wheelchair taxis were available, even though no wheelchair passengers were waiting? Would everyone get left? Would an exception be made in this case-on what grounds though, that couldn’t be used in other cases?