Decision for Fife Scottish Omnibuses Limited t/a Stagecoach East Scotland (PM0000004)
Written decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland for Fife Scottish Omnibuses Limited t/a Stagecoach East Scotland
IN THE SCOTTISH TRAFFIC AREA.
FIFE SCOTTISH OMNIBUSES LIMITED PM0000004
PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT 1981
PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLES (OPERATORS LICENCES) REGULATIONS 1995
PUBLIC INQUIRY DEPUTY TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER WRITTEN DECISION
The Operator was called to a public inquiry on 2 April 2025 because of complaints made by a passenger in June 2024. I have anonymised the passenger as ‘M’ in order to avoid any disclosure of sensitive information about her personal circumstances.
M was a wheelchair user who relied upon the Operator’s bus route services because of her mobility issues. M had made a complaint to the DVSA about the service that the Operator provided to disabled passengers when operating coach type vehicles. She had no issues with the services which were operated with “ordinary” buses. Coach type vehicles require disabled passengers to use a hydraulic lift at the main front passenger entrance door to access the bus. Once on board, a front seat is slid backwards to allow the passenger’s wheelchair to be accommodated. Once in position, the wheelchair is then locked in position by a floor mounted securing device or clamp, to prevent the wheelchair from moving during the journey.
M’s main complaint was about an incident on 1 June 2024. M had arrived at Edinburgh bus terminal to take a bus to St Andrews that was scheduled to depart at 15:00. M had intended to get off the bus at an intermediate bus stop near her home.
The driver was unable to deploy the hydraulic lift. The driver was assisted by a supervisor and, after about 20 minutes, the hydraulic lift was deployed and M was able to board the bus. The driver and the supervisor were unable to operate the wheelchair securing clamp which appeared to be rusted and loose. After a further 25 minutes the Operator’s staff were able to secure M’s wheelchair.
At M’s intended stop the driver was unable to release the wheelchair securing clamp. The driver telephoned the Bus Station for assistance in dealing with the situation. M was asked if she would stay on the bus and travel to the St Andrews Bus Station. M asked if the Operator would pay for a taxi from the Bus Station to her home. The driver made this request on her behalf and was told that the Operator was not prepared to pay for a taxi. A passenger offered to pay for M’s taxi home. M agreed to travel to the Bus Station in order to minimise further inconvenience to the other passengers as the bus was already late and it was a hot day.
When the bus arrived at the Bus Station the driver and the depot supervisor attempted to release the wheelchair from the wheelchair securing clamp. The supervisor was able to release the wheelchair and M was able to alight from the bus.
M travelled home by taxi. The taxi was arranged and paid for by the Operator’s supervisor.
During the incident the supervisor remarked that “this happened last week to a gentleman in a wheelchair.”
There was another incident on 28 June 2024 when the driver had been unable to release the wheelchair securing clamp. Eventually, after the driver had scraped grease off the clamp he had been able to release the clamp.
On at least two other occasions M had been stuck on a bus because either the wheelchair securing clamp had jammed or the hydraulic lift was unserviceable. M had refused to travel onwards to the Bus Station. The Operator had sent a relief bus to allow the other passengers to continue their journey. The Operator had sent a mechanic to fix the wheelchair camp or the hydraulic lift.
M described how she had felt humiliated and embarrassed on these occasions. She had been concerned not just for herself, and other wheelchair users who might encounter similar problems, but also for passengers whose journeys might be disrupted or delayed and who were concerned and distressed about M’s well-being. M, quite justifiably, was worried that the problems would recur.
On 28 August 2024 Vehicle Examiner Paterson visited St Andrews Bus Station and carried out random checks on coach style buses operating on the routes in question to investigate the driver’s knowledge of how to operate the disability accessibility equipment and to see the equipment in operation. VE Paterson carried out two checks. Both drivers had satisfactory knowledge, however on one of the buses the ratchet mechanism that tightened the wheelchair restraints was not working properly.
The hydraulic lift was serviced every six months by a specialist contractor. The locking mechanism and restraints that secure a wheelchair inside a coach style bus were serviced and maintained by the Operator as part of the vehicle’s routine 28-day safety inspection routine.
VE Paterson looked at the safety inspection records for the bus involved in the incident on 1 June 2024. These showed that a safety inspection had been carried out on 15 May 2024 and all of the PSVAR inspection components had been found to be serviceable.
The driver defect report cards showed that on 1 June 2024 the driver had reported a defect “had problems with ratchet for wheelchair.” After the defect had been reported the bus had been used on another route, which required a PSVAR bus, later that day. The driver reported the defect “AS ABOVE”. The next day the bus was put back into service on two routes which also required a PSVAR bus. On 3 June 2024 the bus was used on a route which required a PSVAR bus. There was no evidence that the defect had been repaired before the bus was put back into service on those occasions. On 4 June 2024 the bus was “VOR’d” (taken off road) for the defect to be looked prior to its annual test.
The Operator accepted that the bus should not have been put back into service after the defect had been reported on 1 June 2024. The normal procedure, which should have been followed in this case, was that after a defect was reported by the driver the defect would be investigated and dealt with before the vehicle went back into service.
The Operator’s Operations Manager had begun an investigation and contacted M to arrange a meeting to discuss her complaint on 19 June 2024. A local management meeting was held on 9 July 2024 to discuss the incident. This meeting was attended by Operations and Engineering Managers. After the meeting on 9 July 2024 the Operator identified a number of action points including:-
i. The Operator would ensure that the wheelchair area was inspected and components and parts were cleaned properly at every 28-day inspection.
ii. Inspections of rests, ratchets and straps would be carried out as part of the first use check on a daily basis.
iii. Regular refresher training would take place to ensure staff were aware of how to operate the hydraulic lift and how to secure the wheelchair user in the designated space.
iv. Contact would be made with taxi firms for occasions when accessible taxis were required to transport customers.
v. The independent contractor who serviced the hydraulic lifts would replace be instructed to pay particular attention to whether or not parts might require replacement at the 6 monthly inspections.
At the Public Inquiry I heard evidence about the incidents that caused M’s complaint. I found video recordings that M had made of some of the incidents particularly useful. I also heard from witnesses from the Operator including the Operations Director.
I found, and the Operator accepted, that M’s complaints were fully justified. She had been let down by the Operator. M should have been able to use the Operator’s buses confident that the PSVAR equipment was in good working order and that the Operator’s staff knew how to use the PSVAR equipment.
The Operator’s evidence, which I accepted, was that it was quite rare for a driver to have to assist a wheelchair user. It was not a daily or weekly occurrence. The ratchet system on 1 June 2024 had been overtightened by the driver securing the wheelchair using his foot to operate the rachet rather than doing it by hand. This meant that the ratchet was difficult to release when M wished to get off.
The Operator had identified two issues following their investigation into M’s complaints.
The first was that the existing system of cleaning the coach style buses could cause issues with the equipment that was used for securing wheelchairs. For example, rust could be seen in some of the videos. That had not, however, been a factor in the incident on 1 June 2024. However, the Operator accepted that the system of cleaning and inspection of the PSVAR equipment required improvement.
The second was that although staff were trained on how to use the PSVAR equipment, the equipment was used so infrequently that staff lost familiarity and confidence in using the equipment, and this had resulted in drivers having difficulty in responding appropriately when a passenger required assistance, e.g. operating the hydraulic lift or tightening the ratchet system appropriately.
I accept that after M’s complaint had been investigated by the Operator, the Operator recognised that these issues were present and took prompt steps to deal with them. The Operator revised the method of cleaning. It also introduced a practice that all the coach style buses would be inspected by staff before they left the depot to ensure that the equipment for assisting wheelchair users was operating correctly. Drivers should not, therefore, find themselves in a position where, when they assisted a wheelchair user, the equipment was not working correctly.
The Operator introduced regular refresher training for its drivers every six months to deal with the possibility of drivers’ skills fading with time because of lack of use. It would, however, take some time for all drivers to undergo this training.
The Operator was investigating the replacement of its coach style buses with hydraulic lifts with low floor alternatives.
I accept that this is an operator that was aware of, and did intend to comply with, its obligations to wheelchair users. For example, before the incident in June 2024 the Operator had been working with disability groups and other wheelchair users to improve the experience of wheelchair users using their services.
The Operator told me at the Public Inquiry that it was committed to making every journey as comfortable as possible for all users, including wheelchair users. They carried out about 160,000 coach journeys a year carrying about 5.8 million passengers. They had received very few complaints from disabled users. These complaints were recorded as a specific factor in the Operator’s Key Performance Indicators. Any such complaints would be escalated to its senior leadership team.
At the Public Inquiry the Operator repeated its apology to M for the distress and embarrassment that she had suffered. The Operator was confident that the steps that it had taken would ensure that there would not be any repetition.
I decided not to make a decision at the Public Inquiry as there was evidence of incidents in November 2024 that showed that M had encountered further difficulties because of problems with equipment and drivers’ training. I accepted that the Operator faced an inevitable delay in implementing the refresher training, as it would take time for all of its drivers to receive the first refresher training, but progress was being made and several hundred drivers had received refresher training.
Since the Public Inquiry the Operator had continued to implement its new system of 6 monthly refresher training for its drivers. The Operator had continued with its improved preventative maintenance inspection programme and daily first use checks.
The DVSA and BUS have confirmed that no complaints have been made to them by M or other wheelchair users about the Operator. There have been no complaints made to the OTC.
Decision
The inconvenience and embarrassment that was caused to M could, and should, have been avoided.
The importance of ensuring that PSVAR accessibility features are maintained in good condition, that they function correctly and that drivers are aware of how to use these accessibility features is, and was, obvious. Even if it was not obvious, the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness states:-
“5.9 Accessibility (PSV)
The Public Service Vehicles (PSV) Accessibility Regulation apply to any Public Service Vehicle with a capacity exceeding 22 passengers used to provide a scheduled service or local service. These vehicles are referred by regulation as ‘regulated public service vehicles’…
The features within these requirements include:
• a wheelchair space with suitable safety provisions
• a boarding device to enable wheelchair users to get on and off the vehicles
• a minimum number of priority seats on buses for disabled passengers
• the size and height of steps
• handrails to assist disabled people
• colour contrasting features such as handrails and steps to help partially- sighted passengers
• easy-to-use bell pushes throughout a bus
• audible and visual signals to stop a bus or to request a boarding device
• equipment to display route and destination
Familiarisation with all the features of a vehicle is important. Operators must ensure that drivers are fully aware of the form and function of accessibility features required by PSVAR.
These features must be taken into account within any safety inspection or drivers walkaround check to ensure these features are maintained in good condition and function correctly…”
Although the Operator had failed to comply with this guidance, the reason that I did not take any action at the Public Inquiry was I was satisfied that since M’s complaints, this Operator had implemented changes in order to be compliant, in particular, the more rigorous checks of PSVAR equipment and refresher training for drivers. In these circumstances, it seemed to me that it was appropriate for the Operator to be given more time to show the changes, once they had been fully implemented, would be effective.
In the eleven months since the Public Inquiry there were no further complaints to the DVSA, BUS or the OTC. In these circumstances I was satisfied that although M’s humiliating and distressing experiences should never have happened, the Operator’s new systems had been effective and that no disciplinary action required to be taken against the Operator’s PSV licence at that time.
Obviously, if in the future there are any complaints, then the Operator risks further disciplinary action being taken against its PSV licence.
Other PSV operators should take note of, and follow, the clear guidance set out in the Guide to Maintaining Roadworthiness at 5.9:-
“Familiarisation with all the [PSVAR] features of a vehicle is important. Operators must ensure that drivers are fully aware of the form and function of accessibility features required by PSVAR.
These features must be taken account within any safety inspection or drivers walkround check to ensure these features are maintained in good condition and function correctly…”
PSV operators should be left in no doubt that failure to comply with this guidance is not acceptable and can result in the loss of a PSV licence.
I am grateful to M for drawing these issues to the attention of the DVSA. As a result of M’s actions the Operator has made significant improvements to improve the experience of wheelchair users of its services.
Hugh J. Olson
Deputy Traffic Commissioner for Scotland
31 March 2026