How is this not a crime?

BecauseMyRingBurnsSheila · 2021-07-15T16:40:46+00:00

BBC News - Ruth Madeley: Actress says taxi driver took her wheelchair away [[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-57838553]] I've deliberately posted here rather than Chat or AIBU because I am genuinely interested in understanding why this isn't a crime? If the Equality Act and Disability Discrimination Act are law why is this behaviour not contrary to them?

JustKeep · 15/07/2021 17:47

So he didn’t actually take her wheelchair? It says he tried to, but that her mother was able to retrieve it.

He didn’t steal her wheelchair, there’s no report of threatening or abusive behaviour.

I mean he’s obviously a dick, but what do you think he could be charged with? He didn’t do anything that’s an actual crime.

NotDavidTennant · 15/07/2021 17:50

The Equality Act is not criminal law. Breaches of the act would have to be pursued through the civil courts.

Bargebill19 · 15/07/2021 17:51

I read that and didn’t understand either. But I wondered if it was classed as a dispute and as he didn’t get away with her chair - her mum? managed to get it back, then nothing to charge him with. (Tbh I want to write nothing easy to charge him with).
If the police can’t be bothered with car crime (Giles coren and his car scenario). I can’t see them doing anything about this sadly.

Bargebill19 · 15/07/2021 17:51

@NotDavidTennant

Didn’t know that - thank you.

gardeninggirl68 · 15/07/2021 17:52

wouldn't hurt to send a peso round to scare them and give a bit of a wake up call

he clearly misunderstood fare was pre paid....a lesson in how their systems work by his employers would not go amiss either

gardeninggirl68 · 15/07/2021 17:53

*pcso!!

GreyhoundG1rl · 15/07/2021 17:56

The article says there was a "dispute over payment".

So he held the wheelchair as collateral 🤷🏻‍♀️ They should have paid.

Sewannoying · 15/07/2021 17:59

When you talk about a crime you are talking about criminal law. There are thousands of ‘laws’ that are civil, rather than criminal in nature. For the most part, the Equality Act is civil law, so you can sue for breach of it’s provisions, but it’s not a crime. (I’m saying ‘for the most part’ as some acts can have a mixture of criminal and civil, and It’s possible the Equality Act has some criminal offences in for very specific things that I’ve not looked in to.)

My knowledge of criminal law is limited, so there might well be a potential criminal offence which he could have been charged with, but it wouldn’t be under the Equality Act 2010.

gardeninggirl68 · 15/07/2021 17:59

read it.....they had pre paid

AlternativePerspective · 15/07/2021 18:01

It’s a bit of a grey area in terms of whether it’s a hate crime because chances are if it had been someone with e.g. a suitcase he would have taken that instead.

My DS once got a taxi home and the bloke demanded cash instead of card payment. When DS said he would have to go into the house for the cash the driver tried to snatch his bag. DS managed to hold on to it and came straight in for the cash. I realise the driver may have wanted the bag as collateral but there are ways of going about that.

My DP went out and had words, paid the man and off he went.

This particular taxi was prepaid, so there was no reason to keep anything as collateral.

Sewannoying · 15/07/2021 18:03

@GreyhoundG1rl

The article says there was a "dispute over payment". So he held the wheelchair as collateral 🤷🏻‍♀️ They should have paid.

It says in the article that it was prepaid, so no payment was due at the time he took the wheelchair, but it’s a bit hidden in the article.

GreyhoundG1rl · 15/07/2021 18:04

I really should have read the full article 😬

Viviennemary · 15/07/2021 18:04

I don't think that's the full story somehow.

AlternativePerspective · 15/07/2021 18:09

It’s always difficult to know.

My DP was refused a taxi because he had a guide dog, (and that is illegal) And the taxi driver drove off so fast that DP was very nearly hit. The man didn’t even close the passenger door, he sped off with the door open.

During the court case he claimed that the dog had put his paws on him and licked him, bearing in mind the dog was actually outside of the cab, and that he had no choice but to drive off. Bearing in mind that if the dog actually had got in the car, his driving off would have meant either the dog being thrown from the car or him driving off with the dog.

Uber dismissed him immediately and he lost his licence.

But I have no doubt that there might be people who would say there is more to the story, and TBH I don’t see why there should be in this instance.

MurielSpriggs · 15/07/2021 18:09

If he laid hands on her at any point then there would technically have been an assault (a crime) although if no harm done then it would never be prosecuted.

Otherwise nothing criminal in nature has happened. I can't see how the Equality or Disability Discrimination Acts have been breached (and anyway not criminal in nature, as pointed out). The only legal consequence for him would be some sort of penalty via his taxi license.

donquixotedelamancha · 15/07/2021 18:31

wouldn't hurt to send a peso round to scare them and give a bit of a wake up call

That's not what the police are for. We don't want the police feeling they have the right to intimidate people for being (perfectly legal) dickheads because they will use that power to defend corruption.

Hillsborough, the miner's strikes, toxteth riots, spy cops, harassment of feminists and countless other corrupt conduct is what happens when the police start deciding they are above the law.

prh47bridge · 15/07/2021 19:14

It is not clear that the driver breached the Equality Act (which replaced the Disability Discrimination Act). Whilst that Equality Act does require the driver to provide mobility assistance, it defines mobility assistance as helping the passenger in and out of the vehicle (along with their wheelchair if they wish to remain in it), loading and unloading their luggage, and loading and unloading their wheelchair. However, if he has breached it the police are wrong. That is a criminal offence for which he could be tried by magistrates and fined up to £1,000.

prh47bridge · 15/07/2021 19:15

@NotDavidTennant

The Equality Act is not criminal law. Breaches of the act would have to be pursued through the civil courts.

Not true. It does contain some criminal offences.

Viviennemary · 15/07/2021 19:22

What happened possibly was this. The trip was pre-paid. When the driver saw the traffic he realised it would take ages to get through. He might have had another fare booked so he tried to drop off at a different entrance and passenger refused. But I dont get the keeping the wheelchair. That was a bit pointless. Anyway sounds like no crime was committed according to the police.

prh47bridge · 15/07/2021 19:28

For clarity, most breaches of the Equality Act are civil matters. However, it does define some actions as criminal offences, including failure by a taxi driver to comply with duties imposed on them by section 165 of the Act, which relates to treatment of passengers in wheelchairs. It is unclear from the BBC report whether the driver committed an offence under this section.

As a general point, I would not trust the police's view on whether something is a criminal offence. I have too much experience of them getting it wrong - attempting to brand something as criminal when it is not, or classing something as a civil matter when it is actually a criminal offence.

prh47bridge · 15/07/2021 19:31

@Viviennemary

What happened possibly was this. The trip was pre-paid. When the driver saw the traffic he realised it would take ages to get through. He might have had another fare booked so he tried to drop off at a different entrance and passenger refused. But I dont get the keeping the wheelchair. That was a bit pointless. Anyway sounds like no crime was committed according to the police.

The taxi driver appears to have demanded payment despite the journey being prepaid and took the wheelchair when payment was refused.

Original poster

BecauseMyRingBurnsSheila · 16/07/2021 12:04

@prh47bridge

For clarity, most breaches of the Equality Act are civil matters. However, it does define some actions as criminal offences, including failure by a taxi driver to comply with duties imposed on them by section 165 of the Act, which relates to treatment of passengers in wheelchairs. It is unclear from the BBC report whether the driver committed an offence under this section.

As a general point, I would not trust the police's view on whether something is a criminal offence. I have too much experience of them getting it wrong - attempting to brand something as criminal when it is not, or classing something as a civil matter when it is actually a criminal offence.

Really helpful thank you. I have no legal background so rely upon those that do to help me distinguish between criminal and civil, who decides it's a crime or not.

It seems as though the law as it stands doesn't disincentivise people to behave within it. I have caught public transport with a friend in her wheelchair and had to advocate for her but I shouldn't have to. The Equality Act should make life equal.

OP posts:

IcedSpice · 16/07/2021 12:14

@GreyhoundG1rl

The article says there was a "dispute over payment". So he held the wheelchair as collateral 🤷🏻‍♀️ They should have paid.

they prepaid??

prh47bridge · 16/07/2021 13:11

It seems as though the law as it stands doesn't disincentivise people to behave within it

The fact that something isn't a criminal offence doesn't mean that there is no incentive to obey the law. If, for example, the owner of premises fails to make any reasonable adjustments that are required by the Act, they won't face criminal prosecution, but the authorities and/or individuals affected can take civil action. This could result in the owner of the premises being ordered to pay damages and/or being ordered to comply with the law. If they are ordered to comply with the law and still fail to do so, that is contempt of court which can lead to imprisonment.

Original poster

BecauseMyRingBurnsSheila · 16/07/2021 22:31

@prh47bridge

It seems as though the law as it stands doesn't disincentivise people to behave within it

The fact that something isn't a criminal offence doesn't mean that there is no incentive to obey the law. If, for example, the owner of premises fails to make any reasonable adjustments that are required by the Act, they won't face criminal prosecution, but the authorities and/or individuals affected can take civil action. This could result in the owner of the premises being ordered to pay damages and/or being ordered to comply with the law. If they are ordered to comply with the law and still fail to do so, that is contempt of court which can lead to imprisonment.

True but it does rely on the individual taking civil action rather than the police/CPS doing it on your behalf. Not everyone has the funds or wherewithal to seek justice on an individual basis.

OP posts: