MOBILITY MATTERS
DISABLED WOMAN HOPES TO ‘EMPOWER OTHER PASSENGERS’ AFTER LEGAL VICTORY AGAINST TAXI DRIVER
A disabled woman hopes a landmark legal victory against a London taxi driver who started the meter before her wheelchair
was
loaded will empow- er other disabled passengers. Emma Vogelmann, 25, and her PA Laura Creek challenged Thomas McNutt when he set the clock running before lowering the ramp on his cab outside
King’s Cross station. As
PHTM,
reported in the High
Court last month refused his appeal against a criminal conviction for breach- ing the Equality Act. Even though no money
changed
hands, Mr Justice Julian Knowles re- jected McNutt’s claim that starting the meter was not part of making a “charge”. Law graduate Ms Vogelmann, a cam-
paigner at Muscular Dystrophy UK, said McNutt had “picked a fight with the wrong person in a wheelchair”. She and Ms Creek refused to travel in his cab and went to the next driver. But McNutt blocked it and police had to be called. McNutt was given a 12-month condition- al discharge and ordered to pay £75 compensation each to Ms Vogelmann
NEWCASTLE DRIVER REFUSED BLIND PASSENGER AND HIS GUIDE DOG
A former Uber driv- er has been con- victed of refusing to pick up a blind pas- senger due to his guide dog. Mohamed Alli Abdul- rahim was prosecut- ed by Newcastle City Council under anti-discrimination laws. He was accused of refusing to collect Dr Mark Banhan as he feared his guide dog, Zante, would make “a mess”. The
26-year-old,
was ordered to pay £200 in compensa- tion to Dr Banhan following the trial. The incident unfold- ed outside The Ship Inn,
in Ouseburn,
after Dr Banhan and colleagues had been out for a meal. Abdulrahim told Newcastle Magis- trates’ Court he refused the fare as he feared one of the group, another doc-
60
tor, was so drunk he would “vomit”. But the court heard evidence from three witnesses - all doc- tors - who denied this. Dr Banham claimed he’d never experienced dis- crimination like it. “I’ve never been out- right refused - in Newcastle it has always been very good,” he told the court. “It is often a positive experience.” Abdulrahim, Newcastle,
from was
found guilty of fail- ing to accept a booking for a vehi- cle by a disabled person accompa- nied by an assis- tance dog. The offence, under the 2010 Equality Act, also resulted in him being ordered to pay £100 costs to Newcastle
City
Council while he was handed an
absolute discharge. The court heard Abdulrahim quit his job as an Uber driv- er. Mmmm… What on earth was the pur- pose of the hearing in the first place, if the driver is handed an “absolute dis- charge”? And as for the £100 costs to the council, what a desultory amount – which would prove not to be a deterrent to many licence holders. Anyway, how did the passen- ger and his col- leagues get home?? Yes, we know this guy has quit his job as an Uber driver; however,
access
refusal can only be dealt with in one way: the maximum Level 3 fine (current- ly £1,000), court costs, and licence revocation - no less. Otherwise it’ll never stop. – Ed.
and Ms Creek and £1,000 costs by Hendon magistrates in May last year. Ms Vogelmann said: “This taxi driver tried to charge me for the loading time getting into the taxi in my
electric
wheelchair. He said he would have done the same for anyone who had luggage. My PA tried to say that my wheelchair wasn’t a suitcase and it wasn’t a
choice I had. “It’s quite obviously discriminating to charge me more purely because I’m a wheelchair user.” The High Court rul- ing was highlighted by TfL’s Mike Brown in showing its deter- mination to ensure equality across the transport network. Since 2015, TfL has prosecuted 55 taxi and PHV drivers for discriminating ag- ainst disabled pas-
sengers. Mmmm… Only 55 drivers prosecuted by TfL since 2015? Hardly a record- breaking achieve- ment over four years, from some 23,000 hackney and (now) over 106,000 PHV drivers. And what about further disci- plinary action against this driver, who blocked in the taxi behind him causing the police to be called? – Ed.
WALSALL DRIVERS BREACH SAFETY REGS FOR WHEELCHAIR USERS
Two out of five taxis breached safety pro- cedures when pick- ing up wheelchair users in an under- cover operation. Walsall Council and West Midlands Police went undercover to ensure that Walsall taxis and PHVs were safely carrying pas- sengers who use a wheelchair. The law is clear that drivers cannot re- fuse a passenger in a wheelchair, must follow clear safety procedures and not charge them any extra for their jour- ney. The test found that the number of breaches had de- creased since an earlier spot check in March. However, it did reveal problems with two of the five journeys tested on the day. One firm sent the wrong type of vehi-
cle to a pick up, and another driver failed to secure both the wheelchair and pas- senger. The same driver also failed to set the taximeter and then over- charged for
the
journey. Lorraine Boothman, regulatory services manager, told the Express and Star: “I am really pleased to see a significant im- provement in stan- dards from the last time we carried out such an operation. It was reported that one of the drivers had provided an excellent
service,
securing both the passenger and chair well, being both courteous and con- siderate.” Mmmm… This article perfectly picks up on the continuing diffi- culties faced by wheelchair who travel
users in li-
censed taxis/PHVs. Questions: (1) What vicarious liability is the operator under when they send the wrong type of vehi- cle for the pickup? (2) What level of dis- ability
awareness
training is undertak- en by Walsall Coun- cil, so that in future drivers will not fail to secure their wheel- chair
passengers
properly? (3) The second driver over- charged because he failed to set the meter, and then over- charged for
the
journey at the end. Does Walsall Council have a section 167 “designated list” of all
their licensed
WAVs in the district, whose proprietors must adhere to s.165 Equality Act obligations? If not, they cannot enforce these obligations on any WAV propri- etor/driver. – Ed.
MAY 2019
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
