Footplate Courses - Age Discrimination

http://www.unity-law.co.uk/news.htm Second article
I wonder how many other railways have a maximum age for these courses? I don't think it's uncommon.

 

Not wanting to get embroiled in the rights or wrongs of this case I think it's only the lawyers that have made any real gains from this.

 

there were several similar ‘steam train’ experiences available elsewhere in the UK that didn’t operate an age restriction

So now PR are down by over a grand, plus the court fees. It doesn't seem to state what the damages were or why Mr. Hallam needed £1200 to repair them.
I'll bet his half price driver experience day he has been awarded will be an absolute hoot.

Comparing a government-run organisation that has an obligation to the public to a tourist attraction that is mostly made up of volunteers is perhaps a tad harsh.

 

I hope that Mr Hallam and his lawyers are very proud of themselves. This is what happens when every activity becomes an ambulance chaser's (sorry - a lawyer's) playground. You end up with a culture where nobody dares do anything, even as a spare time leisure activity, without involving the lawyers. Or is everything now a commercial matter, with all the attendant complications?

John

 

So imposing an arbitrary ban on those aged over 70 is acceptable?

 

So the ban was common sense?

 

As "Learner" above, I too do not understand some of these comments. Peak Rail should not have discriminated on age. They could have accepted this as soon as Mr Hallam objected. Any cost to the railway is unfortunate but due to their error.

 

But why should Peak Rail be in error ?

The DVLA issues licences unto 70 years of age and after that I presume short term (3 years?) licences are issued until either (1) the driver's death or (2) incapacity due to health prevents further issues. (Note : I am not there yet so cannot be be certain that this will apply when I reach that age!). On that basis Peak Rail are not setting an "arbitrary" limit but one used by other bodies responsible for "driving" licences.

However IIRC railway drivers on the network are also allowed to work unto age 70 after which further footplate duties are subject to annual health checks so the Peak Rail age limit is also valid. However since the details of the case have not been fully explained there may be some question of what action taken by the railway has been declared "at fault" - e.g. was there a restriction placed that was held to be "unfair"; was there a total ban with no discretion ?

Whilst understanding that many heritage lines are sufficiently large to have developed into businesses with the legal rights and responsibilities thereof it does seem that some lines may be open to legal action for trying to protect themselves by setting restrictions that fit their particular situation. In many ways it parallels the situation of lineside access where some lines allow it, some charge for it, some insist on safety training leading to line specific permits and some refuse it on safety grounds.

Who would want to be General Manager of a Heritage Line ?

 

The important point is being missed. It was the insurance co that stipulated an age limit, which I believe they are allowed to do. This puts the railway in a difficult situation as it can't really run these days without insurance. The article says other railways don't apply this age cap but I know of others where a similar conditions apply because of insurance. I think that any argument that you go elsewhere for insurance isn't realistic as you go to an insurance co. that gives the best overall cover at the right price and if that is one of their conditions, so be it. I also wonder whether those that don't have a cap have read the small print of their policy?

 

(deleted)

 

70 is not old nowadays. It is clearly age discrimination to have a blanket ban after that age without taking into account health. A simple medical is all that is needed

 

Because they discriminated on an arbitrary characteristic, rather than on the ability or otherwise of the participant to undertake the activity.

The correct approach would have been to say something like "this activity requires climbing up onto a locomotive and standing on a moving platform with some heat and humidity. Participants should ensure that they are fit enough" or words to that effect. After all, consider who is more likely to be able to carry out the activity easily - a 75 year old who started as a loco cleaner in BR days and has carried out footplate duties on the mainline or a heritage line ever since, or a morbidly obese thirty year old? Clearly it isn't age that is the determinant factor, it is agility and general fitness. So setting an age limit is against the law.

It's not exactly rocket science. When I took my father (aged 80-odd) for a taxi-ride on Just Jane, it was clearly set out in the booking conditions what the access difficulties were (most notably, climbing through a narrow gap over the main spar). No discrimination on age, simply a test of capability to perform the task.

Tom

 

It would seem that this point is still being ignored by some posters on here. I shudder to think what would have happened if PR had accepted the gentleman's booking in contradiction of their insurance terms only for him to have caused or been the victim of an incident.

 

As Steve says it is the railway's insurers who set the rules. IIRC the upper age limit for the LR's drivers was/is 70 years and would guess that also applies on several other railways. It is notable that this was an out of court settlement - if it had gone to court I think the result may have been different but this probably was less risky financially for the railway. Unfortunately we have imported this "no win-no fee" ambulance-chasing mentality from the U.S. where the tide now seems to have turned to "O.K. see you in court". In the long run the only losers will be those who just want to just enjoy their hobby. Ray.

 

If the insurance company is imposing arbitrary restrictions, I suspect they are vicariously liable in this case.

Comparisons with mainline driving are largely irrelevant as I am sure that at all times during a footplate experience trip, the driver is responsible for operational safety on the footplate, and of the train.

Jamessquared has set out the view I share above. If there is doubt about the health of a participant then it might be reasonable to require a medical. I think it would be unreasonable to require a medical solely because someone has reached the age of 70. A screening questionnaire might be appropriate.

 

Has anyone citing the insurance actually seen the policy?

Seems to me that it is at least possible that when he initially challenged the decision, he was given the excuse "it's the insurance" as a catch-all bit of received wisdom that turned out not actually to be the case. Only when he challenged further did the railway back down and allow him to participate - which suggests that actually the insurance doesn't bar on age grounds (unless the policy was emended to enable him to take part, which seems unlikely).

It feels to me that a large insurer is unlikely to make a mistake in setting a policy that could be challenged on discrimination grounds - those sorts of organisations carry out equality impact assessments to avoid those sorts of things. On the other hand, the thought that a person in an office of a heritage railway taking a booking, who is quite likely not to have actually read the railway's insurance policy to the last dot on an i and crossed t, may well have cited it as a reason, probably simply as a bit of received wisdom.

Tom

 

Whilst everyone is concentrating on Peak Rail, there are other footexes that I have come across with a 70 years age limit, also noted due to insurance.

 

One might do well to remember that the Equality Act was enabled quite recently in 2010. The implications are still to be fully understood or realised. As an example consider how the H&S Act of 1974 turned into a monster that was certainly not envisaged when it was passed.

 

I believe insurers will be more than alive to the risks if procedures appear ageist. Public liability policies are unlikely to mention age but risk assessments are the key, and seeking suitable medical details where appropriate to enable a proper risk assessment to be made.

Steven