Roads v Central Trains Ltd.

Under section 21(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, a service provider must assess whether a physical feature makes a service impossible or unreasonably difficult for people with the relevant kind of disability, and then whether reasonable steps have been taken to avoid that difficulty.

A proposed alternative method of access must be reasonable in all the circumstances. Where competing solutions exist, the provider must compare them in light of the statutory policy of approximating, so far as reasonably practicable, the access ordinarily available to the public. The fact that some wheelchair users can manage an unsuitable route does not reduce the reasonable standard of adjustment once the route has been found unreasonably difficult for wheelchair users. Costs expressly excluded by the parties cannot influence that assessment.

Mr Roads, a wheelchair user, could not use the footbridge between platforms at Thetford station. The alternative half-mile Station Lane route was found unreasonably difficult. Central Trains proposed that he travel via Ely to change to the Norwich line, adding more than an hour to the journey.

Mr Roads sought a wheelchair-accessible taxi, on adequate notice, to transfer him between the platforms. The parties had agreed that the cost of obtaining a taxi from Norwich would not be relied on. Norwich County Court dismissed the claim on 6 May 2004. The appeal raised whether the statutory duty was engaged for wheelchair users as a class, and whether the Ely route was a reasonable alternative method of access.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Lord Justice Sedley gave the first judgment, with which Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Buxton agreed. Judgment was entered for Mr Roads for £1,097.

2. Section 21(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 directs attention first to the effect of the physical feature upon persons with the relevant kind of disability, here wheelchair users. The personal right under section 19 then arises where the breach makes use of the service impossible or unreasonably difficult for the particular claimant. The county court had considered the evidence under the wrong heading, but its reasoning about traffic, road surfaces and the need to remain on the carriageway established that Station Lane was unreasonably difficult for wheelchair users as a class.

3. A reasonable alternative method under section 21(2)(d) is not established simply because some means of access exists. Where there is a choice of solutions, their comparative practicality and their consistency with the statutory policy must be assessed. The court approved the policy stated in In re Holy Cross, Pershore [2002] Fam 1: access should, so far as reasonably possible, approach the standard offered to the public generally.

4. Once the Station Lane route had been found unreasonably difficult, evidence that some wheelchair users had managed it could not be used again to reduce the standard of alternative provision. The trial judge had also impermissibly allowed the cost of bringing an adapted taxi from Norwich to affect his assessment, although Central Trains had agreed that cost was excluded. The arrangements imposed no unreasonable burden on the taxi firm, and the remaining administrative burden on Central Trains was slight.

5. On the assumed facts of adequate prior notice and no cost to Central Trains, requiring Mr Roads to make an additional journey of over an hour via Ely, when a taxi could transfer him across the tracks within minutes, was not a reasonable alternative method of access. The decision was confined to those unusual assumptions; it did not determine what would be reasonable where notice was inadequate or the provider could rely on the cost of the taxi.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — allowed the claimant’s appeal and entered judgment for him for £1,097.
• Norwich County Court — Judge O’Brien dismissed the claim on 6 May 2004.