Mandy Sankey – WARNING – Social Care Manager

Amanda Sankey. White woman with below shoulder length side parting dirty long hair, bright red blotchy top with plunging neck line. Had notable hamster cheeks. Against the background of a wall composed of what looks like red sandstone blocks.

Caution before employing Amanda Sankey

Prospective employers should exercise serious caution and carry out thorough due diligence before considering Mandy Sankey for any role.

This is to hopefully help others avoid experiencing the same distress I and other social care service users and staff endured at her hands during her time at Leonard Cheshire

As a resident in a care home she managed, I experienced behaviour that was, frankly, astonishingly unpleasant and undermining. Her conduct was formally criticised by Leeds Social Services following a safeguarding investigation under Section 42 of the Care Act. She was instructed to apologise for her actions — an apology that she never offered.


My Complaint

“It is profoundly uncomfortable living in a service run by Mandy and Sonja, given their unprofessional and derogatory characterisation of me revealed in several emails disclosed via my recent Subject Access Request. These communications are psychologically abusive and quite astounding.”


Findings from Leeds Social Services

“We consulted our Area Safeguarding & Risk Manager, who advised that your concerns be recorded as safeguarding under Section 42 and investigated through our safeguarding complaints process.”

“The tone and content of the emails you referred to are clearly unprofessional. I offer you my sincere apologies for the offence and distress they have caused. LCD has also acknowledged the emails were inappropriate.”

“LCD has noted the matter on both workers’ files and confirmed this will be taken into account if issues recur.”


A Persistent Pattern

Unfortunately, I have no evidence that this intervention altered Ms Sankey’s approach.

Across multiple Subject Access Requests spanning several years, I’ve substantial evidence of her being superficially pleasant to me, while expressing profoundly demeaning, undermining and unprofessional views in frank internal emails between managers.

These emails show that the pattern of behaviour extended beyond me – to other residents and staff as well.

What troubles me most is not just the offensive tone, but the deep mischaracterisation:
assumptions of bad faith, dismissal of legitimate complaints, and a consistent willingness to present a facade of cheerfulness while engaging in internal disparagement.

Others have described her demeanour as a “plastic smile” – a brittle mask of superficial jollity concealing contradictory motives and values.


Sudden Departure

Ms Sankey recently left her post as Leonard Cheshire’s Director for England and Wales, after over six years in senior management. She left with no notice, and did not have another job to go to.

Buyer Beware

Mandy Sankey's X profile, does her with bronze skin, against a busy room background. Mandy Sankey’s LinkedIn profile

All Station Staff must be trained to deploy ramps – ORR

The Office of Rail and Road have confirmed that all gateline and other customer-facing station staff, including agency staff, must be trained in ramp provision.

Where disabled passengers experience problems due to the lack of said training, they can demand thousands in compensation for every incident.

The Problem

Often station staff won’t deploy boarding ramps. This is a problem for me with delay, uncertainty, stress and pfaf getting the guard to do it.

It is much more of a problem on trains without guards.

Office of Rail and Road opinion

My interpretation is that this shouldn’t happen. Every staff member who interfaces with the public, including agency gateline staff, must be ramp trained.

So I asked the Office of Rail and Road. They have made the position clear in an email to me today.

Thank you for your emails of 1 and 17 April, where you raised questions about whether Gateline staff, including those who are agency staff, should be trained to deploy wheelchair ramps for trains.

You have identified the relevant sections of the ATP guidance. All frontline staff that interact with passengers should be trained to deploy wheelchair ramps and, where reasonably practicable, training should also be provided to frontline agency staff and frontline staff contracted on a temporary basis.

You may be interested to know that, to support us in monitoring compliance, from 1 April this year, we have started collecting data from operators on their delivery of disability awareness training (which includes ramp deployment) as part of our core data requirements.

Couldn’t be clearer, really. Disgraceful that many train operating companies, including Northern and SouthEastern, make no effort at all to train gateline staff to operate ramps – with the result Christiane experienced as above, as do so many of us.

Train Operating Companies Don’t Comply

Northern said to me in a Freedom of Information Response:

Ramp training is provided to conductors, dispatchers and ticket office staff that provide platform duties. It is not provided as part of gateline training, as gateline staff are not responsible for ramp deployment as part of their normal role.

The ORR are now watching Northern:

You raised particular questions about Northern’s conduct. As you may be aware, we are already in regular discussions with Northern regarding the actions they have committed to take to improve the reliability of their assistance provision. We have now raised questions on their training for frontline staff as part of that ongoing engagement.

Why are so many train operating companies breaking their licence conditions by making no effort to train gateline staff how to deploy wheelchair ramps? Do they not care about the uncertainty and distress this causes to wheelchair users, particularly where Driver Only Operation is in effect? And why hasn’t the ORR noticed and taken action before?

The regulations are clear. Any frontline staff member who interacts with passengers as part of their job must be trained to deploy ramps, amongst other things.

Discrimination

If the lack of ramp training of station staff causes a disabled person a problem on a journey, I think it is pretty clear that the station operators has discriminated against the disabled person contrary to the Equality Act. They’ve failed to provide an auxiliary aid or service, contrary to Section 20 of the Equality Act.

I would encourage the Passenger to complain to the company and to demand compensation in the form of thousands of pounds for each individual incident. Should the company not cough up, I recommend appealing to the Rail ombudsman.

Given the companies clearly don’t care about the impact their breach of licence has on disabled customers, perhaps being hit in the pocket will act as an incentive instead.

The Regulations

Here’s the nitty gritty. All train and station operators must have an Accessible Travel Policy (ATP) that complies with the ORR’s ATP Guidance. They have to do so as part of their licence to operate train services in Great Britain (Condition 5 of the Station Licence and GB Statement of National Regulatory Conditions: Passenger).

Section B6.1 of the Guidance includes:

Operators must make the following commitments in their Accessible Travel Policy in relation to staff training, setting out a plan for how these commitments will be delivered: …

b. all frontline staff that interact directly with passengers at any time as part of their duties must, as part of their induction, receive training that delivers mandatory training outcomes 7, 8 and 9 as set out in Appendix D. …

f. where reasonably practicable, agency staff and staff contracted on a temporary basis that interact directly with passengers at any time must receive a condensed version of the disability awareness training or disability equality training, to deliver as a minimum mandatory training outcomes 6 (Passenger Assist), 7 (Communication) and 9 (Providing safe assistance) as set out in Appendix D.

(original emphasis)

Appendix D states:

9. Providing safe assistance

Staff are made aware that it is their duty to ensure that both staff and passengers remain safe at all times. They are able to:

a) Identify and deploy the correct ramp safely for boarding and alighting
b) Transport a passenger safely, correctly and comfortably in the station wheelchair
c) Correctly guide a blind or visually impaired person

Rail Ombudsman Now Hopefully Offering Fairer Compensation for Assistance Failures

The Rail Ombudsman has significantly revised its approach to compensating disabled passengers who experience assistance failures on UK railways. Through a recent case and advocacy, compensation awards have increased from around £100 to a baseline of £1,200. This change better reflects the legal framework around disability discrimination.

Background on Rail Assistance Complaints

The Rail Ombudsman handles complaint appeals when train operators fail to provide agreed assistance or when disabled passengers face other forms of discrimination. Until recently, their compensation awards were notably low:

  1. June 2023: Average award of £145.63 for accessibility complaints.
  2. 2024 report: Average £112.40.

These amounts treated discrimination incidents as customer service matters rather than acknowledging them as violations of equality law, and fundamentally undervalued the impact of such on disabled people.

The Legal Framework

The Vento case provides the legal precedent for discrimination compensation. Even though Vento was about an employment case, it also applies to services provision. After inflation adjustments, it established that minimum awards for disability discrimination should be £1,200.

“In general, awards of less than £1,200 are to be avoided altogether, as they risk being regarded as so low as not to be a proper recognition of injury to feelings.”

Testing the System

To demonstrate the disparity between legal standards and Ombudsman practices, I pursued parallel cases for a March 2023 minor assistance failure at Euston (#EustonWeHaveAProblem):

  1. The Ombudsman process resulted in an award of £100 (plus £25 for complaint handling).
  2. The court case concluded with an award of £1,325 for the identical incident.

So, for precisely the same (low impact) assistance failure, the Ombudsman awarded me £100, and the Judge awarded me £1,325. This clear comparison provided excellent ammunition for advocating for better payouts.

The Process of Change

Armed with this, I:

  1. Presented the court/Ombudsman comparison to the Office of Rail and Road.
  2. Lobbied the Ombudsman about their framework.
  3. Demonstrated how legal precedents align with the Ombudsman’s professed “principles of fairness and reasonableness.”

Coincidentally, Sam Jennings was working on the same issue at the same time — double trouble!

Ombudsman Awards Fair Compensation

In January 2025, my Ombudsman referral for a minor assistance failure at Birmingham demonstrated their shift in approach. The Ombudsman awarded me £1,200, citing legal advice they had received that:

  1. Assistance failures represent a failure to provide reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
  2. Compensation for the minor assistance failure should typically range from £1,000 to £1,500.
  3. The public setting and potential humiliation are relevant factors in determining amounts.

This £1,200 is the highest the Ombudsman has ever awarded for assistance failure or other access issues.

Practical Implications

For disabled passengers experiencing assistance and accessibility failures:

  1. The Ombudsman process hopefully now offers more appropriate compensation
  2. The minimum award of £1,200 better reflects the impact of discrimination
  3. Train and station operators MAY be incentivised to improve their assistance provision

I’ll be interested to see how the Ombudsman deals with future disability discrimination cases!

Current Limitations

Several challenges remain:

  1. Making a complaint requires significant time and effort.
  2. The Ombudsman’s maximum award remains capped at £2,500.
  3. The complaints process itself could be more accessible.

What to Do if Things Go Wrong

If you experience an assistance or accessibility failure:

  1. Document everything promptly – times, locations, staff names, and photos, if relevant.
  2. Request your data quickly – especially CCTV, which is often deleted after 30 days.
  3. Complain to the train company or Network Rail – be specific and state you expect at least £1,200 compensation.
  4. If unhappy with their response, take it to the Ombudsman after 40 working days or when the company’s process ends.

Remember to keep copies of all correspondence and make clear you’re complaining about discrimination under the Equality Act.

Further Information

For more detailed information about these changes:

  1. Read John Pring’s news coverage.
  2. Visit Sam Jenning’s Right to Remedy campaign.

I was originally invited to write this blog piece for the DPAC website, and republish it here with permission.