Wheelchair passenger not allowed to board

[37 418]

I used to work for the Trainline's Assisted Travel team where we booked assistance for Virgin, London Midland and ARRIVA Trains Wales.

I do remember Northern NOT allowing scooters on their services, of course many passengers tell you it's a wheelchair when its not! The issue with scooters isn't (always) the size - but because of their turning circle.

Assistance cannot be guaranteed at short notice - this is because the station(s) may not receive the APRS report in time, and phoning/faxing the station(s) isn't always successful.

 

[me123]

Yes, that is true - but I'd suspect it's more likely that it WAS him and he will try and pretend it wasn't. He gave too much information, especially before he posted the video on YouTube, which makes the imposter theory somewhat unlikely.

Now, on this forum, it is possible - but DS? He's been on there since before the incident happened.

I personally don't believe that he was an imposter. But it's something that Northern would undoubtedly have to consider in the course of their enquiries.

 

[Greenback]

My gut feeling is that he was the wheelchair user, but I can't prove it!

 

[jon0844]

No, of course we can't prove it - but it's going to look very suspicious if he suddenly denies it was him because he wakes up and realises all of the things he admitted to afterwards. It might be a good defence for him though, until IP addresses were checked and so on.

Mind you, it doesn't really matter either way, as the evidence is still there anyway - namely the fact that ramps for that train can't be used at his station. It still seems quite likely that the guard said that before the filming, other than simply refusing to speak to someone for no apparent reason.

On Digital Spy, I'd say it's 100% him because he wrote about things before they happened (as in going to the press, uploading a video etc). That would make this a far bigger story and suggest a major conspiracy!

 

[Greenback]

Yes, I read the DS thread without getting involved, and the info originally posted seems to be conclusive proof that tonyaryan was the man in the wheelchair.

I'm pretty sure that the results of the investigation will not turn on what was posted in any forum, but I would hope they would have an influence. Thye main point is the fact that the ramps are unsuitable, and I have no doubt hat this was explained to the passenger many times!

 

[tonyaran]

I have today had the meeting with Northen Rail. I am not able to go into the details but can let you know that they apologised and agreed with me in my argument - which was that I SHOULD have been allowed onto this train and that there was no reason not to. They went through all the evidence and could not find any reason for not letting me on this specific train.

They also asked me if I was still happy for the guard not to be sacked. I said yes. They assured me this guard will be reprimanded and him (alongside others) will be retrained.

I hope this 'vindicates' me as many of the forum members were calling me a 'liar' amongst many other things.

 

[CarterUSM]

They shouln't be telling you what, if any, punishment is meted out to the guard, and i am very surprised and appalled if they have.

 

[Flamingo]

Well I never called you a liar. I called you a nasty mean-spirited little troublemaker (which I hasten to add you have every right to be, wheelchair user or not).

 

[jon0844]

Seems that, if this is true, Northern Rail opted for the safe response that I feared.

However, it doesn't explain how they're basically saying it IS okay to use a ramp on that class of train at Guide Bridge.

I would prefer to hear this apology issued by Northern Rail though, as I am very concerned by the thought that a company would ask someone if they wanted someone sacked or not. As I've just posted on DS, that would make any employee want to join a union VERY quickly.

 

[scotsman]

I do hope the Guard's a Union member

 

[tonyaran]

Seems that, if this is true, Northern Rail opted for the safe response that I feared.

However, it doesn't explain how they're basically saying it IS okay to use a ramp on that class of train at Guide Bridge.

I would prefer to hear this apology issued by Northern Rail though, as I am very concerned by the thought that a company would ask someone if they wanted someone sacked or not. As I've just posted on DS, that would make any employee want to join a union VERY quickly.

I do hope the Guard's a Union member

I never wanted the guard dismissed. He is very very lucky to be in employment after this severe discrimination from his part. I on the other hand stated very early on for him not to be sacked. And this is what NR have taken on board.

 

[CarterUSM]

Seems that, if this is true, Northern Rail opted for the safe response that I feared.

However, it doesn't explain how they're basically saying it IS okay to use a ramp on that class of train at Guide Bridge.

I would prefer to hear this apology issued by Northern Rail though, as I am very concerned by the thought that a company would ask someone if they wanted someone sacked or not. As I've just posted on DS, that would make any employee want to join a union VERY quickly.

Tonyaryan said he couldn't say too much, but i would've thought what he has said is exceedingly 'too much'! I'll be frank about it, i find it very hard to believe they asked if they still wanted him sacked.

 

[sprinterguy]

The part of this outcome that bemuses me that Northern Rail have supposedly admitted that there was no issue with allowing a wheelchair passenger bound for Guide Bridge to board this service, whilst it seems to be fairly common knowledge to a few folk on here, and hence in the rail industry, that the longer disabled ramp needed for a 142 cannot be deployed at Guide Bridge.

Are Northern Rail not savvy with their own rolling stock nowadays?

 

[jon0844]

I never wanted the guard dismissed. He is very very lucky to be in employment after this severe discrimination from his part. I on the other hand stated very early on for him not to be sacked. And this is what NR have taken on board.

I am not sure how you think you ultimately had the ability to decide his fate? You write as if the guard should in some way consider himself lucky that you didn't say he should be sacked!

It seems more likely they simply told you he won't be sacked and you've said this to save face.

 

[scotsman]

I never wanted the guard dismissed. He is very very lucky to be in employment after this severe discrimination from his part. I on the other hand stated very early on for him not to be sacked. And this is what NR have taken on board.

Well, I'm glad of that anyway. However, one of the Guard's responsibilities is the safe boarding of passengers - I would trust him to make a sensible decision on whether it was ok to use a ramp at Guide Bridge. He should be the be all and end all as far as I'm concerned. Discrimination is another matter, however, and I loathe that more than people who say "Don't touch me, that's assault"...

 

[tonyaran]

The part of this outcome that bemuses me that Northern Rail have supposedly admitted that there was no issue with allowing a wheelchair passenger bound for Guide Bridge to board this service, whilst it seems to be fairly common knowledge to a few folk on here, and hence in the rail industry, that the longer disabled ramp needed for a 142 cannot be deployed at Guide Bridge.

Are Northern Rail not savvy with their own rolling stock nowadays?

I have repeated many times that the ramp/s are deployable at Guide Bridge. NR also agree with this. It is only you, and some others, that are still adamant on this issue. I am willing to do a test-run at Guide Bridge if you can arrange it. Maybe this will assure you.

 

[CarterUSM]

I never wanted the guard dismissed. He is very very lucky to be in employment after this severe discrimination from his part. I on the other hand stated very early on for him not to be sacked. And this is what NR have taken on board.

You. Have. No. Say. In. Disciplinary. Action.

 

[tonyaran]

Discrimination is another matter, however, and I loathe that more than people who say "Don't touch me, that's assault"...

If NR admit that I should have been allowed on this train and that there were complications, then what other possible reason does the guard have for not letting me on? Do bear in mind that NR have also said there was no reason at all for this.

 

[Ferret]

Hmm, after you've been caught out posting untruths & half-truths in the past, is there any reason to believe you now? I find it extraordinary that Northern would ask if you wanted the Guard sacked or not.

 

[jon0844]

I am willing to do a test-run at Guide Bridge if you can arrange it. Maybe this will assure you.

I do agree that someone should do a test-run. I am not sure it should be you, but definitely someone. Maybe the papers should be invited although such a boring test wouldn't really get the Daily Mail and the like juicing up with excitement.

If Northern Rail thinks it has swept the problem under the carpet, you get some compo and they're simply going to allow people to use the ramps on that train even if the platform is too narrow, then you have what you want but I think NR will still have many problems to come.

If that is true, your claim to be doing this for the benefit of everyone in a similar situation to you will be bogus. You will simply have made some money out of it.

Of course, you might now say that you're not going to accept the money or will give it all to charity, but until I hear something from Northern Rail I will always remain suspicious of what you say because of all the inaccuracies and contradictions made before.

 

[scotsman]

If NR admit that I should have been allowed on this train and that there were complications, then what other possible reason does the guard have for not letting me on? Do bear in mind that NR have also said there was no reason at all for this.

You're being very high handed about this and I don't like it.

Northern Rail management are not Guards. You are not a Guard. You are not Northern Management.

I think the reason you weren't let on is because of these 'complications', but I don't know all the facts and I'm not going to pretend to. However, I would always go with the Guard's decision - he is in charge. End of.

 

[CarterUSM]

I do agree that someone should do a test-run. I am not sure it should be you, but definitely someone. Maybe the papers should be invited although such a boring test wouldn't really get the Daily Mail and the like juicing up with excitement.

If Northern Rail thinks it has swept the problem under the carpet, you get some compo and they're simply going to allow people to use the ramps on that train even if the platform is too narrow, then you have what you want but I think NR will still have many problems to come.

If that is true, your claim to be doing this for the benefit of everyone in a similar situation to you will be bogus. You will simply have made some money out of it.

Of course, you might now say that you're not going to accept the money or will give it all to charity, but until I hear something from Northern Rail I will always remain suspicious of what you say because of all the inaccuracies and contradictions made before.

Who is giving him compensation?

 

[tonyaran]

I do agree that someone should do a test-run. I am not sure it should be you, but definitely someone. Maybe the papers should be invited although such a boring test wouldn't really get the Daily Mail and the like juicing up with excitement.

If Northern Rail thinks it has swept the problem under the carpet, you get some compo and they're simply going to allow people to use the ramps on that train even if the platform is too narrow, then you have what you want but I think NR will still have many problems to come.

If that is true, your claim to be doing this for the benefit of everyone in a similar situation to you will be bogus. You will simply have made some money out of it.

Of course, you might now say that you're not going to accept the money or will give it all to charity, but until I hear something from Northern Rail I will always remain suspicious of what you say because of all the inaccuracies and contradictions made before.

I have not accepted any compensation and wil not. My whole point was to raise awareness of disability discrimination. I believe I am only half way to the goal in this particular case.

You're being very high handed about this and I don't like it.

Northern Rail management are not Guards. You are not a Guard. You are not Northern Management.

I think the reason you weren't let on is because of these 'complications', but I don't know all the facts and I'm not going to pretend to. However, I would always go with the Guard's decision - he is in charge. End of.

NR did not mention any 'complications' to me in the meeting. Persnally, I feel the guard was wrong and he did discriminate against me because of my disability. There is no other reason. By now the guard will have had his chance to put his side of the story (and include the so-called 'witness' statements). NR have made a decision and it is very much to what I have been crying out...

NO REASON WAS GIVEN FOR ME NOT TO TRAVEL ON THIS TRAIN.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Hmm, after you've been caught out posting untruths & half-truths in the past, is there any reason to believe you now. I find it extraordinary that Northern would ask if you wanted the Guard sacked or not.

So do I. I will bet a reasonable amount of money that Northern did not ask him whether he wanted the guard sacked or not.

 

[jon0844]

Who is giving him compensation?

Northern Rail. He says he was offered compensation but didn't (until now) state if he was accepting it because he said he couldn't really say much.

I have a feeling that by the end of the day, he will have said EVERYTHING and more.

 

[scotsman]

Persnally, I feel the guard was wrong and he did discriminate against me because of my disability. There is no other reason. By now the guard will have had his chance to put his side of the story (and include the so-called 'witness' statements). NR have made a decision and it is very much to what I have been crying out...

NO REASON WAS GIVEN FOR ME NOT TO TRAVEL ON THIS TRAIN.

Ok, give me some evidence. Prove to me that you are right. It has been stated repeatedly that ramps can't be used at Guide Bridge on 142s. This Guard may have been unprofessional in not giving a reason, but it's no excuse.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Are we not bored of this yet, whatever we say he'll change his story and repeat himself over and over again, we know he's lying to be honest lets just stop argueing cos it seems such a waste fo good time and posts....

 

[tonyaran]

Ok, give me some evidence. Prove to me that you are right. It has been stated repeatedly that ramps can't be used at Guide Bridge on 142s. This Guard may have been unprofessional in not giving a reason, but it's no excuse.

My evidence is the meeting with NR today. I understand you can not take anything about this meeting seriously until confirmed by NR, but as they have no intention to do so I would suggest that you wait until the final outcome. I will not be letting this go yet and will keep this thread members informed of any future developments. Until then I will not be posting in this thread.

I am however willing to do a test run to proove that I can use this train with these ramp/s at the specified stations/platforms without problems. If anyone is willing to arrange that then PM me and I will be ready.

 

[CarterUSM]

What final outcome?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Northern Rail. He says he was offered compensation but didn't (until now) state if he was accepting it because he said he couldn't really say much.

I have a feeling that by the end of the day, he will have said EVERYTHING and more.

Totally, he's said plenty already!

 

[Ferret]

What final outcome?

Yes, I'm confused by this too!

Tony - top tip for you : stop pretending the Guard was discriminating against you on the grounds of disability. You'll find this board is populated by quite intelligent people - and those of us with a modicum of intelligence know that he refused to carry you because of something that happened 'last time', and we know this courtesy of your own youtube video. I don't believe you've ever told us what the Guard was referring to.....and I presume you have no intention of doing so!