Skip to main content

Partial victory for wheelchair user over bus access

A wheelchair user has won a partial victory at the UK Supreme Court over priority use of wheelchair spaces on buses. The case arose when wheelchair user Doug Paulley attempted to board a bus operated by FirstGroup, which carried a sign asking passengers occupying the wheelchair space to “please give up this space if needed for a wheelchair user”. The wheelchair space was occupied by a woman with a baby in a pushchair who refused to move when the driver asked her to. The driver took no further action and
January 18, 2017 Read time: 2 mins
A wheelchair user has won a partial victory at the UK Supreme Court over priority use of wheelchair spaces on buses. The case arose when wheelchair user Doug Paulley attempted to board a bus operated by FirstGroup, which carried a sign asking passengers occupying the wheelchair space to “please give up this space if needed for a wheelchair user”.

The wheelchair space was occupied by a woman with a baby in a pushchair who refused to move when the driver asked her to. The driver took no further action and Paulley was unable to board the bus. He sued the FirstGroup for unlawful discrimination, arguing that its "requesting, not requiring" policy was discriminatory.

The Supreme Court allowed Mr Paulley’s appeal, but only to a limited extent.  It ruled that FirstGroup’s policy of requiring a driver to simply request a non-wheelchair user to vacate a wheelchair space without taking any further steps was unjustified. It said the driver should consider further steps to pressurise the non-wheelchair user to vacate the space, depending on the circumstances.

Following the judgment, managing director of First Bus, Giles Fearnley said the group welcomed the court’s decision. He continued, “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.”

He went on to say that the Group looks forward to receiving further clarity around the decision and will implement any necessary changes when the Court publishes its Order.

“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.”
UTC

Related Content

  • September 16, 2014
    EU defines and limits scope of tolling concessions
    New regulations are set to standardise the process of awarding concessions across the European Union. In the wake of several inconsistent judgements at the European Court of Justice, the European Commission has approved new legislation that defines a concession. The basic demarcation from a public contract remains the same in that concessions include the right to exploit the work or services provided instead of payment. However, at the point of signing, the regulations impose an all-inclusive threshold of €
  • January 25, 2012
    Smartphone - the next technology for charging and tolling?
    With all the debates over the most suitable future technology or technologies for charging and tolling, is it not time for the industry to look at what the rest of ITS is doing and bring a rank outsider - the smart phone - closer into the fold? By Jack Opiola, D'Artagnan Consulting LLC
  • March 29, 2017
    When speed compliance becomes a safety issue
    David Crawford finds that softly, softly can be safely, safely when it comes to speed enforcement. Comedians and controversial TV presenters have long made jokes about having to watch the speedometer so closely as they pass speed camera after speed camera that they mow down bus queues. But the joke may have some factual basis according to a study by researchers from the University of Western Australia.
  • February 28, 2022
    Putting the brakes on smart motorways
    The UK government has announced that development of its all-lane running highways is going to be put on hold for another few years to assess safety data. Adam Hill finds out why