Equality watchdog funds ‘David and Goliath’ bus access appeal


A disabled campaigner has won backing from the equality watchdog to continue his legal battle to protect the rights of wheelchair-users to travel on buses.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has decided to support wheelchair-user Doug Paulley’s appeal to the Supreme Court for his case against First Bus.

Disabled campaigners were left “frustrated” and “appalled” in December when three court of appeal judges found in favour of First Bus, and against Paulley.

That judgement over-turned a county court ruling that wheelchair-users should have priority in the use of dedicated wheelchair spaces over parents with pushchairs, and that the “first come, first served” policy of transport company First Bus breached the Equality Act.

Instead, the court of appeal said that a bus driver needs only to request – and not demand – that a buggy-user vacates the space if it is needed by a wheelchair-user.

Now Paulley’s lawyers, the discrimination law specialists Unity Law, have formally sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Paulley, from Wetherby, took the case against First Bus – described by one newspaper as one of the top 10 “David and Goliath” legal cases of 2014 – following an incident three years ago.

He had been planning to travel to Leeds in February 2012, but was prevented from entering the bus because the driver refused to insist that a mother with a pushchair should move from the wheelchair space.

Paulley told Disability News Service that if permission was given for an appeal, it would be the first time an Equality Act case about reasonable adjustments would come before the Supreme Court.

He said the appeal was important partly for the sake of wheelchair-users’ ability to travel, but also because – if it was allowed to stand – the appeal judges’ interpretation of a service-provider’s need to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act would have “bad implications” in other areas.

He said he could not have afforded to fund an appeal himself, while the government’s legal aid reforms meant that, if such an incident happened now, he would not be able to bring a case at all.

He said this meant that there was “just one shot at this”, and for EHRC to “put their resources behind it in such a way clearly indicates they think it’s important”.

An EHRC spokesman said: “This case is of enormous importance to the thousands of wheelchair-users who may wish to use public transport such as buses without having the anxiety of being told they cannot travel because the space is being occupied by buggies.

“This is why the commission will support this case at the Supreme Court if we are given permission to appeal.

“At this stage it is not possible to estimate costs, but we see our involvement in the case as important in improving the quality of life for disabled people and helping them achieve equality with non-disabled people.”

A spokeswoman for Unity Law said: “Part of the Supreme Court’s role is to consider wider policy objectives that can be achieved by the case.

“Unity Law are interested in hearing from any other interested groups who feel they have an important contribution to make to the debate*.”

A First Bus spokesman said the court of appeal decision had given customers, drivers and the industry “much needed clarification around the priority use of the wheelchair space on board buses”.

He said: “The court’s judgment endorsed our current policy, which is to ask other passengers in the strongest polite terms to make way for wheelchair-users.

“We note that Mr Paulley has applied to appeal the court of appeal verdict. We have lodged submissions setting out why we do not believe this is a case that needs further consideration.

“We recognise how important it is that bus services are accessible for all customers – indeed we are leading the industry in improving bus travel for customers with disabilities. That good work is continuing.”

*Email Unity Law at info@unity-law.co.uk

  • User Ratings (3 Votes)
  • jaimelicious

    One problem with this – First Bus drivers do *not* ask in the strongest polite terms for prams to move – the vast majority won’t voluntarily ask at all, instead preferring to shake their head at you as they drive off/past. On the occasions where I have insisted they follow their company’s policy as expressed in response to Mr Paulley’s case – they tend to look over their shoulder and mutter something like ‘she wants you to move but you don’t have to’. I have had that exact phrasing used more than once. I’ve been refused access to four buses in a row on any number of occasions – memorably, in one case, because of an *empty* pram in the wheelchair space – the mother had her kid on her lap, but refused to fold the pram because she had her shopping in it! Very glad the EHRC are supporting Mr Paulley, but they should have stepped in ages ago given the implications of this case.

    First’s defence in this case is entirely specious as it rests on a policy which, in practice, is never enforced and so effectively does not exist. Therefore, the case as considered by the court *isn’t* the one wheelchair users experience day in day out, because First have dishonestly misrepresented their efforts to comply with the Equality Act – and thus the whole process and experience of a wheelchair user trying to catch a bus – to the point where they have essentially just made it up out of thin air.

    I’ve suggested to First Manchester, any number of times in the endless complaints I have to make about their so-called ‘services’, that they solve the problem of whether they are entitled to tell a pram user they must move in the following manner. Simply amend the terms and conditions of carriage, which apply to all passengers on all journeys, to state that prams, pushchairs, and buggies must be folded if the driver says so.

    If that fails, then make the amendment even clearer – all prams and pushchairs and buggies must be folded before you board the bus, end of argument.

    Parents *choose* to have children, and they choose which pram or pushchair they buy. If they can’t fold it or find it too difficult to fold, then they shouldn’t bring it on the bus. I got absolutely no choice about becoming a wheelchair user, and little choice in which chair I had. There are, on our local buses, two other spaces, aside from the wheelchair space, which can accommodate an unfolded pram. Or they could fold it. Or they could walk. My only choice is to wait for a bus, and just hope that out of the eighty or so spaces there are, the single one I can use isn’t taken up by someone who could move but just doesn’t want to.

    If I’m lucky enough to achieve this, it’s almost immediately followed by someone cramming a pram into the end of the space – painfully, trying to occupy the same volume of space as my feet and lower legs – who then ignored me as their kid hits my legs, kicks me, or smears whatever variety of crud they’ve got plastered all over them onto as much of me as they can reach. Asking for the parent to restrain the pram or for it to be moved off my feet generally just gathers abuse, and First’s drivers are as unhelpful about this as they are about anything else. I had one threaten me for taking a note of the bus’s registration after he refused me access because of a pram recently .

    • Sad to say that I suspected this was the case. Are you in contact with Doug? Just in case this might be helpful with his final appeal…

      • jaimelicious

        No, I don’t know Doug Paulley except from the media coverage of his case. If you think my experiences might be of use to him, please feel free to pass my name along – best way to reach me is probably Twitter @jaimelicious, or my email which I think you should be able to see..