Footplate Courses - Age Discrimination

All this brings an interesting point...

what happens if a disabled person in a wheel chair wants a footplate ride (not a driving / firing course)...

 

Looks ridiculous to me. I work for a motor insurance company, in the complaints department. We have a maximum age for customers of 75, because that is the terms we offer our policy on. It's not discrimination, it's the level of risk which our underwriters are prepared to accept. Insurance is based on statistics, and like it or not, statistically speaking, somebody over 75 is more of a risk on the road. I am NOT saying that everybody over 75 is a terrible driver, I'm sure there are some 76 year old drivers with reactions twice the speed of mine. But as an insurer, we make a decision based on risk and statistics and it's our right to do so.

I'm not saying whether PR's age limit is right or wrong, but they've surely got the right to apply one if they want.

My job regularly involves offering compensation, and I will do this based on the level of inconvenience a customer is caused. So what inconvenience did this gent experience? Nobody was stopping him going to the Severn Valley to do a course. If a company don't want to take your money, take it somewhere else. PR didn't take his money and then turn him off with no refund. They simply stated that the course wasn't open to everybody, and their terms and conditions didn't allow participants over a certain age. What inconvenience did this man experience? Virtually none, apart from that he caused himself by conducting a frivolous and petty lawsuit.

£1200?! Unbelievable. He puts in no money, isn't inconvenienced, and makes a fat load of cash off a volunteer organisation.

 

You'd be amazed at the people coming past my desk who do nothing but complain for the sake of complaining. If I had a pound for every complaint I handle for somebody that complains for a living... Well I'd not be that much richer, but I'd have a few quid for sure!

 

The bold text may explain why this was settled out of court. Had the court made a decision it would have been set a precedent that could be used in similar cases against heritage lines BUT by settling "out of court" there is no legal precedent and future cases will need to start from the same start point as this case (i.e. prove the discrimination). In that respect Peak Rail has "protected" other heritage lines from similar legal costs and a donation from them might be appreciated.

In the case of the taxi drivers I suspect the main criterion for success was the fact that the discrimination was viewed as a "restriction on unemployment" hence the discrimination being held as it was BUT the Footplate Experience is more "entertainment / public access" and I suspect that in such case the "discrimination" would be held to be acceptable to protect participants from themselves in that it was a reasonable condition given similar situations such as DVLA rules on driving licences.

 

As far as I am aware Main line drivers can go upto age 75 yrs providing they pass their yearly medical and associated tests / papers. So not sure why Peak Rail decided that a 73yr was unable to learn to drive a steam locomotive on a similar basis on the railway? However, as some have stated the individual in question has done no favours to the preservation movement in question as that all will happen, railways will find other legitimate reasons to stop it from happening which does not involve age, sex or religion.

 

You could refuse. The Equalities Act requires that you make "reasonable adjustments" to your service to enable access to the disabled. Extensive modification to the footplate of a loco to enable wheelchair access would be considered beyond reasonable. You could also argue that by allowing a wheelchair-bound person onto the footplate of a loco (especially one in steam), you would be remiss in your duty of care to both the disabled person and the locomotive crew in that mobility around the footplate is an important element of safe working.

Tom

 

There was a "USA Tank" look-a-like restoration project based at the MHR for a while that was aimed at producing a wheelchair-friendly footplate. I recall it being called "Project 75" or similar - my (probably inadequate) Google searches have not found anything, does anyone know if this still exists??

 

This is most misleading and is a good example of the type of unwitting prejudices that influence us. Here is the summary data about age related motor insurance claims from the Association of British Insurers: http://tinyurl.com/ovndaky

76 - 80 year olds have the lowest frequency of claims of all drivers.

The statement "like it or not, statistically speaking, somebody over 75 is more of a risk on the road." is simply false and I am most surprised that someone working for a motor insurance company should make it.

 

Might it not have been better for the big preserved railways to club together to (financially) help Peak Rail to fight this case, and hopefully establish a precedent that would discourage opportunists and ambulance chasing lawyers? A court ruling dismissing the claim and better still, ordering the claimant's lawyers personally to pay the costs of the railway in defending the case, might have been a salutary lesson for the money grubbers. As it is, there will now be a few more of these chancers putting in a claim.

The ACAS guidance surely relates to employment situations, where you can't blame an elderly person for defending his/her right to non-discrimination in earning a living. To import this into leisure activities is ludicrous. There are surely some areas of life that ought to be lawyer-free.

Bluff has to be called.

John

 

You are, of course, correct that the ACAS guidance is directly related to employment. I used it as a foundation for my summary because the same principles apply to the provision of goods and services and the ACAS guidance was written in clear and concise language.

I do not believe that anything I wrote is misleading. Here are two other apposite sources directly related to the provision of goods and services, one more detailed than the other.

Briefing from the lawyers Lewis Silkin: http://tinyurl.com/lg99z6b
Beginners Guidefrom the Law Society : http://tinyurl.com/l5v72bd

 

I wasn't suggesting that you were misleading anyone, but sometimes the law is an ass.

John

 

This, I believe, may be a 'victory' for the lawyers and claimant but is is a hollow one for sure.

They may have achieved their purpose but I believe all it will achieve nationally is for Heritage railways and other societies - often Charities - to review their conditions for offering services to members of the public. It will, I am sure, cause a very much tighter framework meaning than many more may now not legally qualify.
Is this matter on Facebook? I just wondered.

 

You don't have to read very far here to see what went wrong.
The original policy was not thought out or researched. When the chap queried the refusal he was no doubt brushed off with the usual "Health and Safety" and "Can't get insurance" rubbish.

The case was, I strongly suspect, settled out of court because the legal advisors for Peak Rail pointed out to their client that the court would ask such difficult questions as : "Have you carried out the risk assessment
that the Regulators suggested?" Or "which insurers refused to cover participants over 73 years?" Peak Rail would have found the court process rather embarrassing.

This was all a simple case of what is now called "Customer Care" or as I would suggest: " Don't insult peoples' intelligence by telling them lies!"

I hope he enjoyed his Footplate Course and Good Luck to him!

Malcolm

 

Now at Barrow Hill / GCR(N)

See http://www.project62.supanet.com/


Keith

 

I thought in a legal case, the team bringing the case had also to demonstrate they can afford to lose it, and pay the other sides costs, compensation associated with losing...

 

Was sufficent information supplied to the insurer to show risks had been assessed and controls in place ? eg Health questionnaire, presence of two(driver and fireman) to instruct, supervise and if needs be take control. where and when such courses take place. Not so obviously,the rostered crew themselves quickly and quietly soon assess the degree of hands on capability of the learner,and the amount of courteous dual control necessary, whatever their age. The insurer then may thenhave reduced the restrictions leading to this case..

 

They seem to have dropped all reference of making the cab wheelchair-accessible though!

Tom

 

I though they were using that angle to gain lottery and other funding. I guess that wasn't successful!

 

Thank you, I had got my numbers mixed up...

 

I think this one sums it up for me, it's a shame the whole thing went so far. Could someone not have spent more time communicating (that customer service thing) that their insurance policy guidance did not allow it so therefore they would have to respectfully decline and headed the whole thing off there? Or given this gent a holding response and clarified things with the insurers?

By the same token did this gentleman really have to go this far, and could he not have been satisfied with a formal apology instead of a charity having to pay 'compensation'?