(29 Dec 2019, 11:41 am)Dan wrote To be fair, you didn't have to look far in the trade press, to see this matter being debated, in the months leading up to today.

Initial guidance from the DfT was open to interpretation, which muddied the waters. It was originally suggested that school services which do not take any fares (and hence are not registered bus services that claim BSOG etc), and are instead paid for by an alternate means (either by a local authority or directly from a school), did not have to conform to PSVAR.

If you, as a small business with relatively low profits, did not have to go to the expense of replacing your fleet with newer vehicles which do conform to PSVAR, why would you? Many of these small operators just about cover their costs and provide a small number of people with a wage, and it's Private Hires (school trips to the baths etc) that contribute towards the greater profits of the business.


Some trade press articles to have a read of:
https://cbwmagazine.com/dft-announce-a-t...-services/
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/mi...ation-law/
https://app.croneri.co.uk/feature-articl...ules-apply

I suppose that's the issue with the government, some of the PSVAR was incredibly detailed in what operators had to do to be compliant, yet some had nothing to it at all!

I personally don't see how anyone could have interpreted it otherwise, but I suppose if you're coming from the position of having to pay for the changes, that may sway your view of it.

I suppose with private hire, it's easier for the operator to plan around any passengers with disabilities because they know in advance who will be travelling, but I remember when I was in school, we had someone in a wheelchair in our class, and on school trips they had to travel in a separate vehicle to the rest of us. While it doesn't leave anyone with disabilities stranded, it's certainly not nice for them as I'd imagine they'd feel excluded