Doug Paulley's blog

disability, data protection, activism and other such

Accessibility of the LNER “Wellness Train”

Posted on by Doug Paulley

LNER have been pushing their “Wellness Train” for some weeks now.

(one wonders if she / the customers will be keeping their clothes on…)

There are serious concerns about the accessibility of this event. I therefore tweeted Freedom of Information requests for the relevant Equality Impact Assessments.

They have now sent me their LNER Wellness Train Equality Impact Assessment FOI response. (As my request was public, I thought I would make the response public too).

I think it is… interesting in what it reveals. Some key comments (emphasis added):

  • “Can we maybe invite (redacted) or discuss with him guidance on the compliances for wheelchairs
    access as I believe we would be in breach“
  • “we should not use coach A for walk on or regular online sales as customers with wheelchairs will not be able to get off at Lincoln (the train hangs off platform after coach H)”
  • “I know you’re in the process of doing an EqIA for this wellness train. I’m a bit concerned that it’s already planned and advertised and that this process is supposed to be signed off before that happens“
  • “we are currently in a position where we are launching the event before an EqIA has been done. This means we have failed to consider our obligations under the public sector section of the Equality Act. If we do receive any challenge, this immediately undermines any ability to defend and is a breach of the law in itself.“
  • “how are we making reservations available for non-event passengers who need a wheelchair space on that train? If we don’t do this, we are in breach of our license. 10% of all seats on the unit must be unreserved priority seats, even in event carriages. How are you ensuring this is the case?”
  • “how are we reassuring ourself that the trainers/instructors are competent to train someone who is blind, deaf, on the autism spectrum, etc.? How are we engaging with these suppliers too, are they deemed ‘contractors’? We have obligations to deliver training to anyone representing LNER who directly interacts with customers under our license”
  • “how are we selling these EventBright tickets? If I go into a travel centre can I get them? If I call the contact centre can they offer these? If this is online only then it is a potential Equality Act breach. We have spent a lot of time and money on the accessibility of our platform. How are we reassured about this for EventBrite?”
  • “there is a celebrity in attendance for one of the carriages. If a wheelchair user picks that event and is in a different carriage, will they get to meet the celebrity? How is this planned?”
  • at some point some other person reckoned that the event is “Fully Inclusive – NO RISK“. A view evidently not shared by the Accessibility and Inclusion Manager (who as revealed in this, is excellent, as expected)

It’s pretty clear that this whole thing was put on without thinking of the accessibility implications, then they have had to attempt to retrospectively bolt-on adjustments and justification – which never really works. Accessibility should be designed in from the start in everything anybody does, and in particular anything a publicly owned body such as LNER does.

However I understand that the lessons from this debacle have been learned, or certainly are being learned, as is made pretty clear in the release:

  • “Once we have completed our event we will look for feedback from the cm who attended the event, with this information we shall look to implement any changes (where possible) for any future events. In addition to this there will be a full debrief of the event with the Accessibility & Inclusion Manager, Senior Customer Relations Manager and Events Manager to look at lessons learned.
  • “Moving forward for future appropriate events these will be discussed within the accessibility forum.“

So I’m not going. (aren’t I a good boy!)

I remain sceptical as to how many people will pay ÂŁ50 to turn up in Kings Cross at 08:06 to travel to Lincoln whilst doing adult doodling etc. on a normal service train. I suspect this may well prove a flop – but we’ll see.

I’ll certainly be very surprised to see anything like this happen again. It damn well shouldn’t; treating accessibility as an afterthought is never acceptable.

“Silencing” warning letter from RDG to TOCs

Posted on by Doug Paulley

Somebody sent me this. (Thank you, sender!)

Email from RDG legal to TOCs 07/04

Dear All

Some of you are subject to FOIA and some are not; I’m writing to you all anyway.

Our Accessibility & Inclusion Manager has pointed out that there is a “campaign” to get information about TOC activities, conducted by a well known activist.

You can find more information here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/doug_paulley

In particular, he highlights: – https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/contents_of_rdg_accessibility_em#incoming-2013074 – https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/members_of_accessibility_group#incoming-2000723

Can I remind you all that disclosures under FOIA are subject to a number of exemptions, some absolute and some not, and that the confidentiality of the information is material.

Discussions between TOCs, emails from RDG, minutes of meetings, etc are all confidential information and we could not function as a member organisation if we did not respect the confidentiality of the discussions and decisions.

In addition, if you are subject to FOIA, please remember that you should not be disclosing personal information, including the names of people involved in any meetings or correspondence. We have recently had an upsetting accusation against a member of staff whose details were disclosed under FOIA, and we have instructed Carter Ruck to help with the consequences.

If you are disclosing information under FOIA, please check whose information you are disclosing and please check with the owner of the information whether there are valid objections.

So much for RDG claiming they “support the principle of transparency and putting more information in the public domain“. They are responsible for substantial national rail infrastructure, yet aren’t subject to the Freedom of Information Act. There’s nothing nefarious or “wrong” about seeking information on decisions regarding accessibility of our railways.

Now they are attempting to enforce false limited transparency on our nationalised train operating companies when responding to Freedom of Information Requests.

As established in my earlier blog, all of LNER, Network Rail, Northern, Scotrail, South Eastern, and Transport for Wales, being publicly owned companies subject to the Freedom of Information Act, quite correctly considered that information disseminated via RDG e-groups, relating to decisions on national infrastructure service provision for disabled people, is disclosable under the Freedom of Information Act.

Claiming something is confidential doesn’t necessarily make it so, nor does it make it non-disclosable under the Act. Personal data is not automatically exempt under the Act either. The exemption for personal data is subject to a Legitimate Interests Test.

However, the Information Commissioner, the Government and others have over time made clear that some personal information relating to public employees’ public roles in particular should be disclosed. For example, the latest version of the Local Government Transparency Code requires salaries of council staff earning over £50,000 to be made public. Clearly there is a consensus that accountability of (especially senior) public officials is a legitimate interest.

Public authorities such as publicly owned train companies: as you know, you are required to do your own assessments of what you are allowed or required to supply under Freedom of Information requests. The primary intent should always be openness and transparency in public life, including in communications and decisions in the important area of accessibility of public transport. As you have demonstrated admirably thus far (with the possible exception of Transport for Wales…)

Also please note that I’m nerdily comparatively knowledgeable and adept at data protection and Freedom of Information law. I know people who are even more so. Through my thousands of Freedom of Information requests and my many years as an administrator at whatdotheyknow.com I have a lot of experience and info at my disposal. If necessary, I will challenge redactions, refusals and other failures to comply with my requests, as I have previously – to decision notices and to the information Tribunals. (Though I would very much rather not have to.)

Personal attacks

As for “We have recently had an upsetting accusation against a member of staff whose details were disclosed under FOIA, and we have instructed Carter Ruck to help with the consequences.”

This clearly refers to my comments on Dominic Lund-Conlon.

I don’t relish or enjoy calling out an individual on here. However, it is time for somebody to stand up to this non-performing patronising bully. I’ve never heard anybody say a complimentary word about him, but I have heard a very lot of disturbing things about his unpleasant demeaning attitude and actions, and I’m aware that there are many tens of rail employees and disabled people who are entirely behind me.

Sadly, my criticism, public research and published concerns are legitimate. In my opinion, the man has done enough damage, through his apologism for endemic industry ableism, through gaslighting of other disabled people and through bullying of his industry colleagues. It is time that this should stop. Others aren’t in a position to speak out publicly. I am.

Carter-Ruck have simply run up a big bill on the public purse whilst actively making the situation “worse” / much more public.

The Customer Information Group (CIG)

I no longer believe that the decision to cancel and refuse all assistance bookings during Storm Eunice was made by the CIG (as claimed by our Dom via his lawyers)

After speaking today to a lot of personnel from across the rail industry, it is clear that members of the CIG are very aware that they do not have the power, responsibility or knowledge to make such a decision; and they certainly wouldn’t have made any decision anyway without ratification from their bosses, let alone without ORR approval. Dom’s claim simply doesn’t ring true.

I wonder who really made the decision. Our Dom, perhaps?

What a disgraceful decision, and what a disgraceful attempt to obfuscate who made the decision and how it was made. Spending industry time and money vainly attempting to cover up the putrid rottenness of this particular corner of the rail industry is both immoral and bound to fail.

Libel threat letter to me from Lund-Conlon

Posted on by Doug Paulley

Dominic Lund-Conlon doesn’t like my previous blog about how he told all Train Operating Companies (TOCs) to cancel and refuse all disabled peoples’ assistance bookings during Hurricane Eunice. He has got the lawyers that Private Eye colloquially call “Carter Fuck“ to send me this legal letter purportedly alleging I defamed him.

Photo of Dominic Lund-Conlon; waitcoat and tie wearing slim white man with dark hair, in front of the London Eye.

His letter seems to boil down to these points.

  1. Rail Delivery Group (RDG)’s “Customer Information Group (“CIG”)” made the decision to cancel and refuse assistance bookings, not our Dom.
  2. Dom “suggested emailing the ORR (Office of Rail and Road) “to set out the situation”.” “That course of action was approved.” “There was no suggestion that Dom would “ask” the ORR what ought to be done”
  3. My allegations unfairly undermine his excellent record in fighting for disableds.
  4. The ORR wrote to me to say that all was A-OK regarding the cancellations, but I published my blog post anyway.
  5. He is unhappy and thus he and/or his employers spent a lot of rail passengers’ / tax-payers money to get lawyers to have a moan at me (and not to actually threaten or ask me to do anything.)

I’m not going to bore you all by responding point-by-point, but I shall tackle these main issues head-on.

1. RDG’s “Customer Information Group (CIG)” decided to cancel and refuse bookings, not Dom

Dom’s lawyers helpfully explained the hierarchy at RDG.

“The Customer Board sits above the Customer Information Strategy Group (“CISG”), which itself heads two sub-groups: the Customer Information Group (“CIG”), which deals with issues related to customer information, and the Accessibility & Inclusion Group (“A&IG”), which deals with issues regarding compliance with licence-linked accessibility requirements (including the provision of pre-booked assistance to passengers)“. (my emphasis)

A pretty clear split of responsibilities: Customer Info = CIG. Accessibility, including passenger assistance = Accessibility & Inclusion Group (AIG). Two separate groups with separate responsibilities.

According to Dom, the CIG made the decision to cancel and refuse all assistance bookings. Not the AIG. The CIG made the decision as part of much wider decisions at a (seemingly informal, unrecorded and unminuted) phone call meeting. Accountable it is not.

I’m prepared to believe that it is possible that this unaccountable group (whose existence, mandate, responsibilities and processes are not published nor transparent, but which as we have found specifically does NOT include responsibility for passenger assistance) somehow made the momentous decision to (tell Dom to) instruct all train operating companies (TOCs) to cancel and refuse all assistance bookings during Storm Eunice, even though trains were still running. Dom wasn’t there; neither, apparently, were any of the accessibility and inclusion managers (AIMs) at any of the TOCs or Network Rail. Interestingly, neither was anybody from Transport for Wales – “There was no meeting with RDG at which TfW Rail was in attendance where this decision was made” -so who was there to decide to cancel all assistance bookings across the industry? what was their remit? and what process were they following?

RDG then instructed Dominic to disseminate the CIG’s decision to all TOCs’ accessibility managers. When he did so, he didn’t say “all TOCs have agreed this in a CIG meeting“, he simply sent out orders (seemingly on his / RDG’s non-existent authority) and assumed that TOCs would follow them. He made no indication as to what decision he was implementing, or who made it.

2. Dom “suggested emailing the ORR “to set out the situation”.” “That course of action was approved.” “There was no suggestion that Dom would “ask” the ORR what ought to be done”

Let’s get the actual messages, should we? In time order, emphasis added:

  • GTR: “we would appreciate industry clarity whether we should/could cancel booked travel altogether over this period as to take a booking for a journey that we know is highly likely to be disrupted may set an unrealistic expectation. Conversely, refusing a booking, as we know goes against everything we would normally do, so this is uncharted territory. Appreciate urgent guidance on this“
  • Dom: “If “Do Not Travel” is in place, then you can’t offer journeys that you are actively telling all customers not to make. I will email the ORR to set out the situation if the group would like me to?“
  • GTR: “Getting ORR confirmation asap would be much appreciated.“
  • LNER: “Yes please – obviously we kind of need a response in hours so hopefully they’ll understand the urgency.“

It’s pretty clear to me that the two TOCs who responded to our Dom’s kind offer were asking for a confirmatory “OK” before going ahead. They didn’t approve Dom telling the ORR what the decision was; they wanted Dom to seek confirmation from the ORR that the proposed course of action was OK.

Dom didn’t seek any such thing. He didn’t say: “I’ve told TOC AIMs to cancel and refuse all assistance, they’ve asked me to seek ORR confirmation, can you oblige?“. He didn’t even say “the CIG has decided TOCs should cancel and refuse all bookings.” He simply told them: “all train operators are undertaking proactive contact with customers who are booked to travel on Friday to rearrange their planned journeys“, and “members will be not accepting any new booking requests from customers for Friday.”

That quite simply wasn’t true, as we have established. I.e. Dom lied to the regulator, claiming that the industry was cancelling and refusing all assistance, whereas in fact, it seems only one TOC (out of 20) was actually doing so.

I stand by what I said in my original post: Dom “does NOT have the power to instruct RDG’s members to do anything, nor the right to lie to the ORR.”

3. My allegations unfairly paint him in a negative light and undermine his excellent record in fighting for disableds.

That is not my opinion of him, nor is it the opinion of a significant number of other disabled people.

Some disabled people think Dom is a misogynist and a bully. I think he is a two-faced yes-man, touting his ableist industry and employer’s self-congratulatory back-slapping whilst failing to deliver disabled passenger’s rights (e.g. the supposedly-all-singing-all-dancing Passenger Assist app). In my opinion, he also engages in gaslighting and undermining other disabled passengers’ voices. I think that far from my blog post “striking at the heart of our client’s professional reputation”, it actually endorses much of the disabled community’s view of him, more like.

In any case, what I posted is fundamentally true. OK; the actual decision was made by an unaccountable RDG-hosted group acting outside of its remit; however he didn’t tell any AIMs how the decision was made, he simply ordered them to cancel and refuse bookings then lied to the ORR that they were already doing it. He didn’t ask for the ORR’s approval (i.e. he defied the clear wishes of those TOCs he represents.) So in my opinion he has undermined himself, in his usual inimical high-handed bullying style.

4. The ORR wrote to me to say that all was A-OK regarding the cancellations, but I published my blog post anyway.

The ORR’s letter was based upon Dom’s lie.

ORR: “On the 17th February the rail industry took the decision to proactively contact all passengers that had booked assistance on journeys due to take place on 18th and 19th February, in order to cancel and (where possible) rearrange these bookings. They also decided to stop taking any further bookings for assistance for this period. We were informed of this decision at noon on the 17th.”

“The rail industry” did no such thing. As we have established, the RDG’s Customer Information Group, which had no responsibility for accessibilty, unilaterally made this decision. Nearly all Train Operating Companies then ignored the order.

It is apparent that the ORR had taken Dom’s inaccurate claim at face value (as they should be able to!) and had written their response to me accordingly. Their conclusion was based on Dom’s inaccurate and untrue statement. It was reasonable for me to continue to publish my blog.

The ORR emailed me again a week later:

“Thank you for your emails, and the further information that you’ve provided. We have also read your blog on this issue …. We’ll be involved in follow up discussions with industry to understand what can be learnt from this event. We’ll be looking at the decisions made, who made them, and who provided what information. We will work with industry to ensure that any relevant learning is incorporated where appropriate into policy and training.”

I stand by my blog and would argue that the ORR’s response on the issue was irrelevant as they were working on wholly inaccurate information (provided by our Dom.)

5. He is unhappy and thus he and his employers spent a lot of rail passengers’ / tax-payers money to get lawyers to have a moan at me (and not to actually threaten or ask anything.)

Scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian", in which Brian's mum shouts: "He's a very naughty boy" Now Go Away!"
Dom’s letter’s seeming intent

It really isn’t a good look. It would have been a much better look for our Dom and the RDG to apologise and explain what they’ve learnt from the experience. His OTT tantrum has simply brought more attention to him and his employer for failing disabled passengers during the storm and has affirmed my opinion (shared by many) that both he and RDG should JUST GO, as the self-important, bullying, non-delivering, ableist apologists and liabilities to disabled people they are.

(note to Dom: I know you’re reading – you could do with reading about the Streisand Effect.)