Stubborn bus passengers who refuse to get of the way for a wheelchair user can be “shamed” into moving by the driver bringing the journey to a halt, the top court ruled yesterday.
In a victory for disability campaigners, the Supreme Court decided bus companies should do more to protect the rights of wheelchair users.
The judges said a driver simply asking for a wheelchair spot to be vacated was not enough, and “unreasonable” passengers who will not budge should be pressured into doing so. They also said Parliament should consider revisiting equality laws.
It follows a legal case brought by disability activist Doug Paulley, who was left at a bus stop in 2012 after a mother with a sleeping baby refused to move her buggy from a wheelchair space.
She said her buggy did not collapse and Paulley was forced to wait for the next bus, missing a connecting train and a planned lunch with his parents.
He sued bus operator FirstGroup for breaching the Equality Act 2010 by not making “reasonable adjustments” for wheelchair users who want to travel.
Delivering the court’s ruling yesterday, Lord Neuberger said: “Where the driver concludes that the non-wheelchair user’s refusal (to move) is unreasonable, it seems to me it would be unjustifiable for a bus operating company to have a policy which does not require some further step of the bus driver.”
He added that if there were an alternative place for the non-disabled passenger to move, “I cannot see why a driver should not be expected to rephrase any polite request as a requirement.
“And, if that does not work and especially if the bus is ahead of schedule, why the driver should not be expected to consider whether there was any reason why the bus should not stop for a few minutes, with a view to pressurising or shaming the recalcitrant non-wheelchair user to move.” Bus firms will now have
to re-evaluate their policies.
Paulley, of Wetherby in West Yorkshire, was initially awarded £5,500 damages at Leeds County Court. That was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which found there should be a balance between the needs of wheelchair users and other vulnerable passengers, including parents with buggies.
The Supreme Court backed Paulley, but agreed there might be some circumstances where a passenger could refuse to move. It also refused to reinstate the damages he was awarded.
award
