Home » Services » Transport

Transport

Disclaimer – please read
This page does not apply outside Great Britain.
Last updated 30th September, 2023.

This page deals with how far transport is covered by the rules on services to the public in Equality Act Part 3. Most land-based transport is covered by the Equality Act. There are greater exceptions for ships and aircraft.

Summary

  • Most land transport (below) is covered by the normal Equality Act (EqA) rules on services to the public (except for making physical alterations, and things governed by certain EU regulations, which I do not think should be relevant for stammering).
  • As regards ships and aircraft:
    • However, for ships and aircraft, broadly the actual provision of transport and the provision of services on board are excluded from the EqA.
    • For aircraft, there is a European air travel regulation, which survives Brexit. It seems unlikely to help in most cases involving stammering.
    • Air carriers may be able to escape liability to pay compensation for matters covered by the Montreal Convention.

Physical alterations to vehicles (and certain other measures) are excluded from the reasonable adjustment duty: EqA Sch 2 para 3. However, there are specific provisions in EqA Part 12 on making eg taxis, buses, and trains physically accessible. Because these rules have no, or hardly any, relevance to stammering, I deal with them only briefly below, in Technical note: EqA exceptions for land transport and Technical note: Part 12 EqA.

Transport Code of Practice

The Disability Rights Commission issued a statutory Code of Practice in 2006 Provision and use of transport vehicles: Statutory Code of Practice, Supplement to Part 3 Code of Practice (pdf, archive of Disability Rights Commission), linked off 2007 archive of DRC’s page ‘Codes of Practice’. This sets out in some detail how the DRC saw the transport rules working under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA).

Even though the DDA has now been superseded by the EqA 2010, the Code has been referred to in past cases and is still helpful. It is likely to be (and if still in force presumably still should be, by statute) taken into account by the courts where relevant: see Guidance and Codes of Practice>Pre-Equality Act Codes of Practice.

Land transport

In principle, the EqA covers most land-based public transport providers – rail, bus, coach, light rail & tram, taxi & PHV, car rental, and breakdown services.

Accordingly the normal rules on services to the public should generally apply to land-based transport. For example, under s.15 EqA it is normally unlawful to treat someone unfavourably for a reason arising from their disability unless objectively justified, harassment is unlawful, and there is also a duty to make reasonable adjustments.

There are some exceptions, which I think are not likely to be relevant to stammering:

  • Only listed forms of land transport are covered by the EqA, but the list covers the main forms of public transport by land. Also particular exceptions from the EqA – relating to physical features of vehicles – are not likely to be relevant to stammering. Below Technical note: EqA exceptions for land transport.
  • The EqA rules on provision of services do not apply to “anything governed by” certain EU regulations on rail and buses giving some disability rights. The scope of this exception is not clear. In any event I think it can be strongly argued that stammering discrimination should not (normally) be governed by the EU regulations as stammering does not restrict mobility. Below Technical note: European regulations, and related exceptions from EqA.

Below are two examples about speech conditions from the pre-EqA Transport Code of Practice 2006.

“A disabled customer with a speech impairment or a learning disability may have difficulty in explaining to a bus driver what their destination is. If the bus driver refuses to allow them on the bus in order not to delay other customers waiting to board, this is unlikely to be justified.” Para. 7.19

“A PHV driver orders a passenger with a severe speech impediment to leave the vehicle because he assumes she has had too much to drink. However, the passenger’s speech is slurred as a result of a disability rather than alcohol consumption. The refusal of further service is for ‘a reason which relates to the disabled person’s disability.’ This will be unlawful unless the transport provider is able to show that the treatment in question is justified, as defined by the Act.” Para. 4.12

Both from ‘Provision and Use of Transport Vehicles: Statutory Code of Practice’, above.

Roads v Central Trains, Court of Appeal, 2004
A railway company was required to make reasonable adjustments for a wheelchair user who could not use a footbridge to cross between platforms at a station. The court said the approach should not be a minimalist one of ensuring some access but rather, so far as reasonably practicable, approximating access to that enjoyed by the rest of the public.

Note: This approach applies to all forms of transport covered by the reasonable adjustment duty, and indeed to the reasonable adjustment duty on service providers generally.

Ships

Ships: various facilities are covered by EqA

For ships, including hovercraft, there are major exemptions from the EqA: below Ships and hovercraft: No claim for transport or on-board service?

However, as previously under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA), it seems that this exemption for ships and hovercraft (and the exemption for transport in, or services on, an aircraft, below) –

“does not mean that transport providers are wholly exempt from Part III. They still have a duty to avoid discrimination against disabled people and to make reasonable adjustments for them in respect of matters like timetables, booking facilities, waiting rooms etc. at airports, ferry terminals and bus coach and rail stations.

“A wheelchair user has no protection under Part III of the Act if a ferry on which he wishes to travel is not accessible. However, if he is refused service in the buffet bar of the ferry terminal because of his disability that is likely to be unlawful.”

That is a quote from para 2.36 of the DDA Part 3 Code of Practice at the time of Ross v Ryanair, 2004, which followed this approach, and in which the Court of Appeal said that para 2.36 of the Code “provides helpful illustrations of the effect of the [DDA] in this regard”. There is similar wording in para 2.23 of the 2006 Transport Code of Practice (above), again on the DDA.

The legal basis why these types of facilities should still now be covered by the EqA is that they are not a service of ‘transporting’ or a service provided on the ship, within s.30 EqA, below (or not within the similar aircraft exemption).

So for example, the EqA should apply as normal to –

  • facilities for buying a ticket, eg at an agency or by telephone;
  • making a timetable enquiry; or
  • using the buffet bar at a ferry terminal.

Ross v Ryanair, Court of Appeal, 2004
Both airport and airline were held liable for providing free use of a wheelchair for a person with mobility difficulties, between check-in and the plane.

Ships and hovercraft: No claim for transport or on-board service?

As discussed in Ships: various facilities covered by EqA above, services such as timetables, booking facilities etc seem to be covered by the EqA. However, under EqA s.30 the EqA rules on provision of services (and public functions, as regards disability discrimination) do not apply in relation to –

  • transporting people by ship or hovercraft; or
  • a service provided on a ship or hovercraft.

To be more precise, s.30 says the EqA rules apply in those cases “only in such circumstances as are prescribed”. However so far as I know, no circumstances have been prescribed.

Surprisingly, there may still be a claim under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in respect of those services excluded by s.30, but in practice perhaps not. See below Technical note: DDA 1995 may theoretically sometimes apply to ships, but perhaps not in practice.

EU regulation for ship passengers

In December 2012 a European regulation took effect, Regulation (EU) No 1177/2010, concerning the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway. This was later amended for Brexit by reg 7 SI 2019/649.

However, as with the other EU regulations discussed below, the regulation may not help with stammering. It covers a “person whose mobility when using transport is reduced….”: below Definition of ‘disabled persons’ may well not cover stammering.

Guidance: Passenger rights when travelling by sea and inland waterway (gov.uk).

Air travel

Facilities may still be covered by EqA

For air travel, there are major exemptions from the EqA, namely –

However, it seems that various things such as timetables, booking facilities, waiting rooms. restaurants etc at airports can still fall within the EqA, as discussed in Ships: various facilities covered by EqA above – except for things governed by the EU regulation.

Ross v Ryanair, Court of Appeal, 2004
Both airport and airline were held liable for providing free use of a wheelchair for a person with mobility difficulties, between check-in and the plane.

In Campbell v Thomas Cook, below it seems to have been accepted that the adjustments at the airport would fall within the EqA but for the EU regulation.

As regards international air travel: so far as boarding and disembarkation are covered by the EqA, compensation rights may be very limited: see below Air travel: Exclusion of compensation for injury to feelings.

EqA exemption for aircraft

The argument for facilities (above) being covered by the EqA is that they are not within the exemption in EqA Sch 3 para 33(2), which says the EqA rules on provision of services do not apply to –

  • “transporting people by air” or
  • “a service provided on a vehicle for transporting people by air”.

Also EqA Sch 2 para 3 contains some specific exclusions from the reasonable adjustment duty on a business concerned with the provision of a service which involves transporting people by air. For example, it is never reasonable to have to take a step which would affect what happens in the aircraft while someone is travelling in it, or which would involve the alteration or removal of a physical feature of the aircraft.

EqA exemption for EU regulation on air travel

Under EqA Sch 3 para 33(2), the EqA services provisions do not apply to “anything governed by” European regulation 1107/2006 below.

It can be argued, strongly I think, that this should not stop the EqA applying to disabilities such as stammering, at which the EU regulation is not directed. In particular, it can be argued that people who stammer will not normally be “disabled persons” within the regulation, on the basis that their “mobility” is not reduced by their disability: below Definition of ‘disabled persons’ may well not cover stammering.

One case where the Court of Appeal considered this exception:

Campbell v Thomas Cook (bailii.org), Court of Appeal, 2014
A passenger on holiday with Thomas Cook in Tunisia was being evacuating back to the UK because civil disturbances had broken out. She had difficulties standing and walking.

On the first day she had a 4 hour abortive wait for check-in at the airport in Tunisia, and then was brought back to the airport the following day when she was able to leave. Two Thomas Cook staff at the airport in Tunisia failed to help her sit, and she suffered projectile vomiting and migraines from the arthritic pain of having to stand.

Thomas Cook argued that EqA Sch 3 para 33(2) excluded liability because this was “anything governed by” European regulation 1107/2006 (below). The Court of Appeal held the regulation was not intended to cover airport and check-in services at non-EU airports (though there were certain obligations for EU air carriers at non-EU airports if the flight was to or from the EU). The EqA applied and she was awarded compensation of £7,500.

Note: It was held the EU regulation did not exclude liability. But did the EqA apply given the discrimination was outside Great Britain? It was evidently accepted that the EqA did apply here. See further Services: Connection with Great Britain.

European regulation 1107/2006 for air travellers with reduced mobility

The gap left by the EqA exemption for aircraft, above is partly filled by the European regulation concerning rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air: Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006.

This regulation is not likely to be useful for stammering: see below Not helpful for stammering.

On enforcement of the EU regulation, see SI 2014/2833. However, it has been held that the Montreal Convention, where it applies, excludes the right to damages for injury to feelings: see below Air travel: Exclusion of compensation for injury to feelings. It seems that on an internal UK flight damages for injury to feelings could still be claimed.

EU regulation: Not helpful for stammering

It seems that the European regulation 1107/2006 will be of little help with stammering –

  1. Firstly people who stammer may well not be disabled people for the purpose of the regulation: below Definition of ‘disabled persons’ may well not cover stammering.
  2. In any event, the rights given by the regulation would be of limited use in relation to stammering. The rights include particularly the right to fly (subject to certain exceptions) and the right to listed kinds of assistance. The rights seem particularly aimed at people using wheelchairs or guide dogs, or requiring information in accessible formats, and other people who need assistance to move around (eg. some with mental health issues).

Links: European regulation on air travel and disability

Air travel: Exclusion of compensation for injury to feelings

For the European regulation from travellers with reduced mobility (above), the Supreme Court held in Stott v Thomas Cook, 2014 (bailii.org) that the Montreal Convention excludes the right to compensation for injury to feelings from an air carrier, where the Convention applies. The same may well apply to the EqA itself. Injury to feelings would often be the only compensation right available, which would mean effectively there is no right to compensation.

Blackstone’s Guide to the Equality Act, 4ed 2021, says that The Air Passenger Rights and Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 SI 2019/278, which took effect on Brexit, in effect ensure there are no penalties to air travel providers for breach on board the plane.

Broadly, the Montreal Convention applies to liability of an air carrier on international flights –

  • while a person is on the aircraft; and also
  • in the course of operations of embarking (ie boarding) or disembarking.

In summary, the Montreal Convention says that the airline’s liability is limited to an accident causing death or bodily injury.

Links on the Stott case:

Links: guidance on air travel and disability

Other sources on transport

Technical note: European regulations, and related exceptions from EqA

How far do EU regulations limit the Equality Act?

EqA Sch 3 para 33(2), 34(1A), 34A) say the EqA provision of services rules do not apply to “anything governed by” the EU regulations below on rail, buses and air, which give some disability rights.

It is far from clear what this means. In a case on air travel, Campbell v Thomas Cook, above, the Court of Appeal said “It is hard to imagine a simpler provision, yet the meaning of the words “anything” and “governed by” have given rise to real controversy. The Court of Appeal in that case held the EU regulation was not intended to cover airport and check-in services at non-EU airports, so the EqA did apply to these.

What if the particular actions complained about give no claim under the EU regulations? Say the regulations do not cover a failure to make reasonable adjustments when buying train tickets (eg voice recognition which cannot understand a stammer), or disability-related harassment on a train. A British court may decide that the EqA can still apply at least if there is no similar right under the EU regulation. However this will need to be clarified by the courts.

A wide exception from the EqA, by reference to the scope of the EU regulations more generally, seems to me harder to support bearing in mind that most of the EU rail and bus regulations only took effect fairly recently. It is worth considering whether the effect of the interpretation argued by the transport provider would be that before 2019 or 2021 there was a wide exception from the EqA despite only very limited provisions of the EU regulations being in force in Britain.

Also at least a wide exception would presumably breach the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), including Article 9.

For stammering and other disabilities which do not reduce mobility, there is a further argument that the matter is not “governed by” the EU regulations, so that they are within the EqA: below Definition of ‘disabled persons’ may well not cover stammering.

The Retained EU Law Act 2023 abolishes the principle of supremacy of EU law from the end of 2023. However I would think this does not mean the EqA will take effect without regard to the EU regulations, because of the express exceptions in the EqA.

The EU regulations continue in force in Britain even after Brexit under s.3 EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. unless and until amended or repealed.

Definition of ‘disabled persons’ may well not cover stammering

The EU regulations below cover broadly “any person whose mobility when using transport is reduced due to [ …] or any other cause of disability, or age, and whose situation needs appropriate attention and the adaptation to his or her particular needs of the service made available to all passengers” (definition of ‘disabled person’ and ‘person with reduced mobility’).

It can be argued that this does not cover at least most people who stammer, who would not say their “mobility” is reduced due to their disability.

It could therefore be argued, strongly I think, that people who stammer – and those with other disabilities that do not reduce mobility – remain within the EqA. It would be argued that since they are not disabled persons within the EU regulations, the subject matter of the claim is not “anything governed by” the EU regulations.

However I’m not aware of any court decision on this.

EU regulation on rail

Under EqA Sch 3 para 34A, s.29 – basically the EqA rules on provision of services – does not apply to “anything governed by” Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations. In the light of Brexit, this 2007 EU regulation was amended in Britain by SI 2018/1165, as itself amended by SI 2020/318 reg. 3(4).

Chapter 5 of the EU regulation covers ‘Disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility’. For example, Article 22 with Article 24 requires assistance to be given in boarding or leaving trains if 48 hours notice is given, and reasonable efforts to be made if not.

Enforcement options for disabled people include –

Guidance: Guidance on regulation No 1371/2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations (gov.uk).

Mainly as from 2019

British domestic passenger services were exempt from most of the 2007 EU regulation until December 2019: latterly under SI 2014/2793. The exemption was permitted by Article 2(4) of the EU regulation.

New 2021 EU regulations on rail do not apply in Britain

Within the European Union, the 2007 regulation was replaced by EU Regulation 2021/782 as from June 2023: Rail passenger rights (transport.ec.europa.eu) and The revised Regulation on Rail Passenger Rights enters into force – What’s new for persons with disabilities? (edf-feph.org).

However Britain took into its law a snapshot of EU laws as they were at the time of Brexit, under s.3 EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Therefore the 2007 regulation (subject to the amendments above) continues in force in Britain unless and until the British Parliament or government further amends or repeals it.

EU regulation on buses

Under EqA Sch 3 para 34(1A), EqA ss.20-22 (reasonable adjustments) and s.29 (provision of services) do not apply to “anything that is governed” by Regulation (EU) No 181/2011 concerning the rights of passengers in bus and coach transport. Chapter 3 of the EU regulation relates to ‘Rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility’. SI 2019/141 made changes to the EU regulation in the light of Brexit.

The EU regulation is supplemented by SI 2013/1865 as amended. Reg 11 of this says a person can bring a court claim for breach of their rights under the EU regulation.

Under reg 4 of SI 2013/1865 as amended, much of the EU regulation did not apply to domestic regular bus services in Britain until February 2021. The intention does seem to be that the full EU regulation (as amended by 2019/141) took effect from February 2021, even though this was after Brexit: European Scrutiny Committee – EU exit Statutory Instrument: coach and bus passenger rights (parliament.uk), 8 October 2019. (I haven’t checked whether it can be argued that legally the EU regulation is still only in force so far as it had effect in Britain at the time of Brexit in 2020.)

EU regulation on air travel

Under EqA Sch 3 para 33(2), EqA s.29 (provision of services) does not apply to “anything that is governed” by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air.

There is also a specific exception in the EqA as regards transporting people by air, and services provided on a vehicle for transporting people by air.

See further above EqA exemption for EU regulation of air travel and European regulation 1107/2006 for air travellers with reduced mobility.

EU regulation for ship passengers

There is an EU regulation for ship passengers, above, but no specific EqA exemption for things governed by it. However there is an important EqA exemption here: Ships and hovercraft: No claim for transport or on-board service?

Technical note: EqA exceptions for land transport

Under EqA Sch 3 para 34(1), EqA s.29 does not apply to provision of a service of transporting people by land unless the vehicle is one of those listed. So a claimant should ideally check their vehicle falls within the list, but the list covers the main forms of public transport by land. It includes broadly:

  • various descriptions of hire vehicle
  • taxis and minicabs within specified legislation
  • buses and the like, within the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981
  • trains and trams within the Transport and Works Act 1992
  • a vehicle deployed to transport the driver and passengers of a vehicle that has broken down or is involved in an accident
  • guided transport within the Transport and Works Act 1992.

Furthermore EqA Sch 2 para 3 contains an exception to the reasonable adjustment duty, concerning the provision of a service which involves transporting people by land, air or water. Para 3(2) says it is never reasonable for the provider to have to take certain types of step (for example altering a physical feature, or a step affecting what happens in the vehicle during travel). However para 3(3) goes on to say that for the land transport vehicles listed above, this limitation on the reasonable adjustment duty only applies where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage. So the reasonable adjustment duty can still apply if a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) puts the person at a disadvantage (the normal case for stammering) or the reasonable adjustment claim is for an auxiliary aid or service (unless it would permanently alter or affect the vehicle’s fabric: para 3(8)(9)).

Other provisions of Sch 2 para 3 say that the EqA may nevertheless require adjustments as regards physical features in the case of –

  • breakdown vehicles, to the extent of providing a reasonable alternative method, such as providing an accessible vehicle for a wheelchair user, and
  • hire-vehicles built to carry no more than 8 passengers.

The provisions also clarify what is to be seen as a “physical feature”.

On physical features, see also EqA Part 12: below Technical note: Part 12 EqA.

Technical note: Part 12 EqA

Taxis and private hire vehicles in Part 12

Ss.164A to 170 EqA contain various obligations regarding taxis and private hire vehicles, and offences for failure to comply. Government guidance: Access to taxis and private hire vehicles for disabled users (gov.uk), 20 June 2022.

Buses in Part 12

EqA Part 12 Chapter 2 enables regulations to be made about enabling disabled people to get on and off public service vehicles, and to travel on them in safety and reasonable comfort. The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000 (PSVAR) SI 2000/1970 on this, made under the DDA 1995, remain in force by virtue of SI 2010/2317 Art 21 with Sch 7.

Also EqA Part 12 Chapter 2A enables regulations to be made requiring operators of local services to make available information about a local service to persons travelling on the service, for the purpose of facilitating travel by disabled persons.

Rail in Part 12

EqA Part 12 Chapter 3 enables regulations to be made about enabling disabled people to get on and off rail vehicles, and to travel on them in safety and reasonable comfort, including in wheelchairs. SI 2010/432 on this, made under the DDA 1995, remains in force by virtue of SI 2010/2317 Art 21 with Sch 7.

More generally:

Technical note: DDA 1995 may theoretically sometimes apply to ships, but perhaps not in practice

As discussed in Ships: various facilities covered by EqA above, services such as timetables, booking facilities etc seem to be covered by the EqA. However, under EqA s.30 the EqA rules on provision of services (and public functions, as regards disability discrimination) do not apply in relation to –

  • transporting people by ship or hovercraft; or
  • a service provided on a ship or hovercraft.

Under s.30 those services are covered by the EqA only so far as prescribed by regulations, which would set out on which vessels and in which waters the anti-discrimination rules apply. So far as I know, no regulations have been made.

BUT it seems that the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) can still apply here. Until regulations are made under s.30 EqA, listed DDA rules on provision of services still apply to services within s.30: Article 10 of SI 2010/2317 with Sch 1 and Sch 2.

BUT the DDA had a major exception for shipping. Under s.21ZA DDA, the DDA did not apply to discrimination in not providing, or in providing, the person with a vehicle, or in not providing, or in providing, services when the person was travelling in a vehicle provided in the course of the transport service. S.21ZA also had an exception relating to reasonable adjustments. In both cases SI 2005/3190 excepted from s.21ZA (and so brought back into the DDA) various types of vehicle but not ships. So what if anything is carved out of the EqA by s.30, but still covered by the DDA despite the s.21ZA exception? For example, discrimination as regards shops, bars and restaurants on board a ship or hovercraft seems to be exempted from the DDA, as well as by s.30 EqA.

It also needs to be borne in mind that effectively one cannot claim disability-related discrimination (similar to s.15 EqA now) under the DDA, due to the Malcolm case.

For transport by ship, the exceptions from the reasonable adjustment duty in EqA Sch 2 para 3 may not be very relevant at the moment, given the continued application of the DDA 1995.

In summary, apart from facilities as discussed above, I expect the normal position to be that there is no claim under the EqA or DDA for:

  • transporting people by ship or hovercraft; or
  • a service provided actually on a ship or hovercraft.

Ships and hovercraft: consultation, 2011

In January 2011 the government issued a Consultation on the application of Part 3 of the Equality Act to Ships and Hovercraft (gov.uk). Also written statement, 13/1/2011.

As regards disability, the consultation proposed that the above transitional position (ie DDA 1995 continues), under Article 10 of SI 2010/2317, should continue until December 2012 when the European regulation (above) took effect. However nothing seems to have happened to change that transitional position.

20th anniversary of stammeringlaw, 1999-2019