Photo: Pexels
Archive Edition
This is an Archive Edition of written evidence submitted to the House of Commons Public Bill Committee during the passage of the Bus Services Bill in March 2017.
This document forms part of the Strategic Access Professional Archive. The Archive Edition format presents the original publication verbatim alongside 2026 analysis, clearly separated so readers can distinguish what was written at the time from what we make of it now.
The original evidence was published under Fry Law, the predecessor practice to Strategic Access Advisory Limited. It was co-authored with Catherine Casserley, barrister, who served as co-counsel on the Paulley litigation. Her name appears on the original submission as it appears on all public records of that work.
The Archive Introduction and 2026 Commentary are new editorial content written by Strategic Access Advisory in 2026. The Original Publication section below is reproduced verbatim from the parliamentary record: nothing has been edited, modernised, corrected, or paraphrased. A note on the submission heading: the original reads “My Paulley” rather than “Mr Paulley” — this appears to be a typographical error in the parliamentary record and is reproduced exactly as submitted.
Original publication — reproduced verbatim
Bus Services Bill [HL]
Written Evidence submitted by Catherine Casserley and Chris Fry, legal advisers to My Paulley (BSB 14)
NC 7 (Priority wheelchair spaces)
1. This briefing addresses the background to, and reasons for, the amendment on priority wheelchair spaces.
Background
2. As stated by Lady Hale in the Supreme Court case of Paulley v First Group: Difficulties with transport are one of the two most common barriers to work for people with impairments. Of the 12m disabled people in the United Kingdom, one tenth, that is 1.2m people, are wheelchair users and more than a quarter of these are under the age of 60 (Papworth Trust, Disability in the United Kingdom 2014, Facts and figures). It scarcely needs stating that they face particular difficulties in getting about and thus playing as full a part as they can in the life of the community. Without the ability to travel they risk becoming socially isolated and losing confidence in themselves. But their journeys need even greater planning than do those of people who are not wheelchair users: will I be able to get to the bus stop, will I be able to get on the bus, when will the bus go, will I be able to get from the bus to the train station, will I be able to get on the train, when will the train go, will I be able to get to my destination at the other end?
3. Following tireless campaigning by disabled people, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 introduced a power for the Secretary of State to produce regulations to require buses and coaches to be designed with certain accessibility features.
4. The Public Service Vehicle Regulations 2000 (“the PSVR”) require a regulated public service vehicle designed for 22 or more people — generally buses and coaches — to be fitted with not less than one wheelchair space.
5. The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 (The Conduct Regulations) set out certain rights and duties for bus drivers, inspectors, conductors and passengers on buses; they state that a wheelchair user must be permitted to board a bus if there is an “unoccupied wheelchair space”.
6. A space is defined as being occupied if there is a wheelchair user in that space or passengers or their effects are in that space and they or their effects cannot readily and reasonably vacate it by moving to another part of the vehicle.
The Paulley case
7. Mr Paulley's case was typical of the experience of many wheelchair users who attempt to board buses (see for example the recent cases on the Transport for All website — Kirsty Shepherd, who was refused access to an Arriva bus in Yorkshire and suffered verbal abuse from her fellow passengers; and Nicki Price from Chelmsford who was denied access to a bus when she was travelling to collect her children from school). Mr Paulley attempted to board a bus but was told he could not as the woman whose pushchair was occupying the wheelchair space refused to move.
8. Mr Paulley won his case against FirstGroup PLC, the bus operator, in the county court, but Firstgroup, having appointed a completely new legal team, appealed to the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal, they were successful in convincing the court that they had done enough. On Mr Paulley's appeal to the Supreme Court, the court held that, though Firstgroup's policy did not go far enough, and the driver should have done more to assist in securing the space for Mr Paulley, FirstGroup were not under an obligation to have a priority policy for wheelchair users which required someone unreasonably refusing to vacate the wheelchair space to be required to leave the bus.
9. This means that a “priority” policy for wheelchair users lacks the “teeth” of enforcement. This is despite the fact that, under the Conduct Regulations, someone who is eating smelly food, or otherwise causing a nuisance, and who refuses to stop, can be asked to leave the vehicle.
10. The amendment addresses the issue of enforceable priority for wheelchair users by enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations so that priority for wheelchair users means just that: if a person unreasonably refuses to vacate the space they may be required to leave the vehicle.
11. They would only be required to vacate the space if it was reasonable — if for example they had a disability, such as having a guide dog, or a walking frame, and thereby required the wheelchair space, they would not be unreasonably refusing to vacate the space.
12. The amendment also provides as a last resort (“if necessary”) a power to require an individual who unreasonably refuses to leave the space to leave the vehicle. There are other options which could be considered before such action is undertaken — for example, stopping the bus (as is done with those who do not make payment).
March 2017
2026 commentary
What happened to NC 7
New Clause 7 didn't make it through. It was thrown out at Commons Public Bill Committee stage in March 2017, the same month this evidence was submitted. The Bus Services Act 2017, which received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017, did not enact any wheelchair space enforcement provisions. What it did include, under section 18, were powers to require bus operators to provide accessible information: audio and visual onboard announcements for passengers. That was a meaningful accessibility step in its own right. But it said nothing about enforcement, and nothing about what happens when a wheelchair user can't board because the space is occupied.
The enforcement gap the evidence had identified remained open.
Where the law stands in 2026
Paulley v FirstGroup [2017] UKSC 4 is still the leading authority. Nine years on from the Supreme Court judgment, the position is unchanged: a driver can ask, and should ask, and the policy should require asking. But the driver can't compel a passenger to leave the vehicle if they refuse. The gap that the Supreme Court identified — but that the court explicitly declined to close through judicial interpretation — and that NC 7 sought to address through primary legislation, still exists.
A Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 completed its Parliamentary passage and received Royal Assent in 2025. Its accessibility provisions are focused on bus network accessibility plans, requiring local authorities to set out what action they intend to take to enable disabled people to use bus services, and on the accessibility of stopping places. These are planning and information obligations. They don't touch the Paulley enforcement question. There's no new mechanism for what happens when a wheelchair space is occupied and the occupant refuses to move.
The question the evidence put to the 2017 Committee — essentially, what does priority actually mean if it can't be enforced? — hasn't been answered by Parliament or by subsequent caselaw.
What this means for transport operators in 2026
The operational implications of Paulley are what they were. A policy that tells drivers to request and leaves it there doesn't satisfy the anticipatory duty under the Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court found FirstGroup's original policy insufficient. Operators need to go further: operational procedures, staff training, a clear escalation protocol, and contingency planning for the situations where a request to move is refused.
The driver can't compel anyone to leave. That's settled. But the policy and training around what happens next determines whether the operator has done enough to satisfy the duty. How is the journey managed when the request is refused? What alternatives are offered to the wheelchair user? What's documented, and when? These aren't abstract questions: they're the difference between an operator that has genuinely anticipated the situation and one that has left its drivers without a workable framework.
The anticipatory duty requires organisations to think ahead. Operators who haven't reviewed their wheelchair space policies and driver training since 2017 are relying on a framework that the Supreme Court had already found insufficient before this evidence was written.
A note on the evidence: this was submitted in March 2017, within weeks of the Supreme Court judgment and during the Commons committee stage of the Bus Services Bill. It represents the legal team's analysis of the judgment and the case for a legislative remedy at that moment. The 2026 commentary is Strategic Access Advisory's current analysis. Where the two differ in emphasis or framing, that's a product of time, not contradiction.
Related reading
Supreme Court judgment, January 2017. The primary authority on wheelchair space priority and the limits of what drivers and operators can be required to do.
Accessible information provisions. The enforcement provisions sought by NC 7 were not enacted.
Current guidance on how the reasonable adjustments duty applies in practice, including for transport providers.
Overview of the legal framework for accessible transport in the UK.
Practical implications
This article remains relevant for a straightforward reason: the enforcement gap hasn't closed. Paulley is still cited in discrimination claims involving accessible transport, and transport providers are still getting this wrong — not through bad faith but because the operational framework around what to do when a request is refused hasn't been thought through. A policy that says “ask” without addressing what comes next isn't enough.
Organisations should review their wheelchair space policies and driver training now, particularly if either hasn't been updated since 2017. Going beyond “ask and request” means building operational procedures around the gap: what the driver does after a refusal, how the situation is communicated to the wheelchair user, what alternatives are available, and what gets documented. Escalation protocols matter. So does staff training that prepares people for a situation the law deliberately leaves unresolved at the enforcement level.
This article is relevant to: transport operators with bus and coach services; venue and event operators with accessible transport planning responsibilities; legal and compliance teams advising on public-facing duties; and local authorities commissioning or overseeing accessible transport services.
Strategic Access Advisory works with organisations across sport, music, entertainment, and live events to translate the anticipatory duty into operational practice. If wheelchair space policy or accessible transport planning is part of your compliance picture, we're available for a conversation.
Chris Fry
Accessibility specialist and legal professional. Postgraduate legal qualifications, CEDR mediation accreditation. Contributor to House of Lords and Commons Select Committee proceedings and Court of Appeal cases. Founder, Strategic Access Advisory Limited.
This Archive Edition is provided for general information. It does not constitute legal advice on the circumstances of any particular organisation. The original publication is reproduced for archive purposes; its legal analysis reflects the position as at March 2017. For current organisation-specific guidance, contact us.