Rail timetable changes: May 2018 Contents

3Contingencies to assist disabled passengers

71.Many, perhaps a fifth, of rail passengers experienced extreme inconvenience and costly, stressful and sometimes dangerous disruption to their daily lives in the wake of 20 May. For disabled passengers within that group, we heard that using parts of the railway became simply “impossible”.97 As noted in chapter 2, the ORR found that Northern, despite its awareness of the likely disruptive effects of the 20 May timetable, did not put in place any additional support for disabled passengers.98 While GTR put “positive and welcome” measures in place for disabled passengers who had booked assistance, those passengers would have been disproportionately affected by the general problem of totally inadequate information at the height of the crisis.99 Below we describe some of the effects and consider how to avoid a repeat of this unacceptable situation.

The experience of disabled passengers

72.Passengers described the difficulties faced by people with a range of disabilities and mobility issues. St Albans Commuter and Passenger Action Group, for example, told us:

“Many reported that they couldn’t even get to the priority seating area to ask for a seat, such was the overcrowding. A profoundly deaf passenger couldn’t hear changes in information and found staff to be unhelpful. A number of passengers messaged us privately about mental health conditions, and the fact that the stress of delays/cancellations, overcrowding and poor information had triggered anxiety symptoms and/or panic attacks.”100

73.Stephen Brookes MBE, a disabled rail user and campaigner from Blackpool, who is the Minister for Disabled People’s “Rail Sector Champion”, described an “impossible” and “unpleasant” experience, particularly where there were very late cancellations and platform changes. He described the situation on the railways in the north in the weeks after 20 May as like “Dante’s Inferno”.101

74.Doug Paulley, a disabled rail user from Yorkshire, described the process of booking assistance during the disruption as “tortuous and unreliable”. He claimed that train companies “do not comply with the obligation to contact passengers to re-plan assistance when disruption occurs.” Mr Paulley said that, in effect, this meant that “during disruption, provision for access needs often goes out the window.” When disruption occurred, train journeys were therefore “disproportionately problematic and stressful for disabled people.”102 Mr Brookes confirmed in oral evidence that disabled passenger assistance schemes “failed entirely” after 20 May:

“People were booking journeys but the trains were not there to connect. Of course, once the first train has missed, every other train progressively fails to communicate and interlink. People were left with no option but not to travel.”103

75.When we put it to the Secretary of State that urgent action was required to ensure disabled passengers could use the railway with a greater level of confidence, including during periods of disruption, Mr Grayling initially focused on the broader issue of accessibility. He acknowledged that “disruption or no disruption, the rail system is not yet fit for purpose for disabled people.” He emphasised the importance of accessible rolling stock and improved electronic signage at stations.104

76.On the narrower point at issue, assistance for disabled passengers during periods of disruption, Ruth Hannant emphasised that train companies operated on the railway network under specific licence conditions, which included having polices and processes to protect disabled people. These are known as Disabled People’s Protection Policies (DPPPs). Section C9 of the DfT’s 2009 Guidance to train operating companies on producing effective DPPPs, states:

“Where disruption does occur, it is expected that operators will do everything possible to ensure that, wherever possible, disabled passengers are able to continue their journey and are not left stranded. Operators must provide details of relevant policies and operational arrangements for meeting the needs of disabled passengers when dealing with the breakdown of facilities and services that can affect access to passenger trains and stations. This should include providing details of the operator’s policy with regard to assisting disabled people in making connections when trains are re-platformed at short notice, as well as information on policies and procedures relating to the provision of accessible substitute transport.”105

Ms Hannant noted that DPPPs were now regulated by the ORR, which was currently “actively looking at” whether the rail industry was “doing its best at meeting those requirements.”106

More stringent obligations and enforcement

77.Professor Glaister told us that the ORR’s timetabling inquiry had looked specifically at the experience of disabled people and confirmed they had been disproportionately disadvantaged on 20 May and the weeks that followed. He emphasised, however, that it had been a “mixed story”:

“Given that frontline staff were put in a very difficult position, there were some good examples of them using their initiative to execute their obligation to make best endeavours to get people home, ordering taxis, and so on. It was not universally a bad experience.”107

Stephen Brookes acknowledged that station staff had often “tried their best” in very difficult circumstances.108

78.Professor Glaister confirmed the ORR would shortly launch a consultation, which Mr Brookes had helped develop, on proposed improvements to the 2009 Guidance on DPPPs:

“It is about giving better information on what is available and better training for station staff to make sure that what is supposed to happen happens on the day. It is about making systems more sympathetic to the various kinds of disability that we see on the system.”109

Dan Brown said the consultation would propose “significant strengthening of the regime”.110 The consultation was launched on 14 November and will run until 18 January 2019. It includes proposals to: increase the reliability of assistance for disabled rail passengers; improve accessible journey planning; reduce the notice period required for booked assistance; provide compensation where passengers do not receive the assistance they have booked; provide better information on what disabled passengers should expect from assisted travel schemes, including when things go wrong; and strengthen train operator and station staff training, including in respect of “hidden disabilities”, with mandatory refresher courses at least every two years.111

79.We asked Mr Brown what powers the ORR had to enforce the DPPP regime. He confirmed that:

“We have the ability to fine any rail company up to 10% of its turnover
[ … ]. Clearly, we have a process of escalating our intervention before we reach the point of fining. Typically, before that point, we work actively with the company to support it in making changes to its policies and approaches, because that is clearly a much more productive outcome for passengers and the rail industry.”112

80.In a follow up written submission, Dan Brown acknowledged that the evidence “demonstrated that passengers who are disabled have not received the service that they deserve in the past”. The ORR had therefore “significantly increased its activity in this area”. It emphasised that responsibility for oversight of DPPPs had transferred from the DfT to the ORR in October 2013. One of the Regulator’s first actions on assuming responsibility had been to establish a systematic approach to data collection, in which it could “capture the [disabled] passenger experience through ongoing research into satisfaction with booked assistance”. This formed a distinct element of the ORR’s consumer-focused regulatory work, the results of which, broken down by train operator, were published annually. The ORR had not used its power to fine in this area of its regulatory responsibilities, but Mr Brown emphasised that: “Putting such information into the public domain in a systematic way creates a clear reputational incentive for companies to deliver better customer service.”113

81.All passengers affected by the 20 May timetabling disruption have been badly let down by the system, but people with sensory, mobility and other impairments were disproportionately affected. This is clearly unacceptable. As a matter of urgency, the industry and the Office of Rail and Road must take steps to ensure such a situation does not arise again. Putting in place adequate contingency plans to assist disabled people if timetable changes do not go plan must now be a central part of train operating companies’ timetable planning processes. We recommend the Office of Rail and Road take a proactive approach to ensuring such plans are in place and, in response to this Report, it should set out how it intends to do so.

82.We welcome the Office of Rail and Road’s renewed focus on the adequacy of train operating companies Disabled Persons’ Protection Policies (DPPPs) and support its intention to consult and then strengthen the regime. Northern Rail’s failure to put in place additional assistance, despite being fully aware ahead of 20 May of the very high risks of severe disruption, clearly demonstrates the weakness of the current approach. Our judgement is that the ORR can no longer rely solely on the publication of data, and the reputational effects on train operating companies’ behaviour, to ensure compliance and the provision of assistance that disabled rail users need and deserve. The Regulator must prove its effectiveness in this policy area, including by acting swiftly to implement the outcome of its DPPP consultation and stepping up its enforcement activity, including using its powers to levy fines on train operating companies.