The Judge made declarations of discrimination for three failures by GTR for my journey from North Dulwich to Scarborough a year ago.
GTR staff told me to make my own wheelchair space bookings on the journey legs on LNER and TPE.
GTR repeatedly booked inappropriate taxis for the leg from North Dulwich station (which has no step free access) to East Dulwich.
GTR assistance fail at London Bridge, requiring me to pull the alarm and get bystanders to seek staff in order to deploy a ramp for me to alight.
The judge accepted formal undertakings from GTR requiring them to issue instructions to their staff designed to prevent recurrence. He instructed their barrister to leave the hearing in order to tell GTR that if they breached these undertakings they could face committal for contempt of Court, ie prison.
He then ordered GTR to pay the (pre-agreed) £10,000 for damages for injury to feelings.
Finally (not recorded in this order) he (exceptionally) ordered GTR to pay some of my costs, on the small claim track, as a result of their unreasonable behaviour in handling my claim.
Network Rail was ordered to pay me £3,750 in June, after failing — again — to meet me with booked passenger assistance at Euston. It’s the second time a court has found against them for exactly this failure, and the judge said the repetition made things worse, not better. Network Rail is now appealing the damages.
the Defendant discriminated against the Claimant by failing to make reasonable adjustments contrary to ss.20, 21 of the Equality Act 2010 in that it failed to provide him with booked passenger assistance at the agreed entrance to London Euston station, notwithstanding an earlier declaration to similar effect made on 17 September 2024
Assistance failure
I’d booked assistance to meet me at the Doric Arch entrance at 6.45pm. I arrived at 6.32pm; no staff were there. Two published contact numbers didn’t work, and two further 0330 numbers rang out unanswered. On a third number, reached via Text Relay for my hearing loss, someone answered after two minutes — then hung up.
As Mr Paulley colloquially, but nonetheless accurately, put it, he was “at the level of bums and bosoms”. Other people would be less willing to move out of his way without him asking, or less able or less willing to navigate around him. That task would have been far easier with a uniformed assistant, as he had booked and as Network Rail had previously provided.
Damages
It being a repeat incident, the Court awarded £3,750 — roughly three times the £1,325 awarded in the first case. The judgment gives its reasoning:
It is also material in consideration of his injury to feelings that this is, at minimum, the second time that this has happened to him. Mr Wilks and I are unpersuaded of Network Rail’s case that, because Mr Paulley is familiar with Euston, that lessens the impact. We agree with Mr Paulley that, if anything, it makes it worse. Indeed, we find it does. That is not just because it is a recurrence of the previous problem; it is because, at an earlier stage, Mr Paulley would have appreciated just what an uphill task National Rail had unlawfully left him in, and the stress that that would be likely to cause him. That anticipation makes his injury to feelings worse.
Inevitably, it has to be accepted that this is not an isolated incident because this incident, the subject of this claim, occurred only about six weeks after judgment had been given in the earlier claim for something very, very similar. We accept from Mr Paulley that, at the time this happened, this was more of a systemic failure on the part of Network Rail. Not only were they accepting bookings for assistance which they then simply did not provide, but they published phone number which they now accept were not working. Those phone numbers were there for people to be able to get hold of them in exactly the scenario that they had created by not providing the assistance.
Appeal
Network Rail is applying for permission to appeal, saying £3,750 is too much because “The Judge failed to provide adequate reasons for an award of damages so significantly in excess of that which was previously awarded.”
I disagree. The judge gave very clear and accurate reasons why a repeat incident should attract significantly higher damages — they’re set out above.
Anyone considering engaging Stephen Brookes MBE to represent disabled people should read this post, which is based on emails disclosed in response to subject access requests to Northern and Bus Users UK.
I have since discovered that Brookes wrote a number of those defamatory emails.
Had Brookes resigned all roles when he left the DPO, I would have left him alone. But he continues to hold such roles – on Northern Accessibility User Group (NAUG) and elsewhere.
In panic after my blog post, he sought urgent tactical and legal advice from somebody with a Northern email address, including a suggestion they ‘rethink [their] links’.
Doug Paulley set himself in this BBC North West item as a person from Manchester – ????? And he has been using his Gopro camera for many years and not a recent start as was inferred in this piece. I wonder if there are any journeys for him which are satisfactory in terms of care and support as most of us do experience good outcomes which are not filmed. As far as I know, he isn’t involved in any panel or group involved in cooperation and cohesion.
Later that day, he added:
You know, one day Doug Paulley may even try to say something positive about the rail industry. But until then we watch pink pigs flying past the window. I and others are tired of Paulley speaking for us while he rakes in the obscene compensation by bullying.
I agree with those sentiments entirely. It really is opportunism dressed as earnest campaigning. I reminded DfT yesterday that we should contrast his actions with those of [redacted], you and others who are skilled at developing meaningful relationships and making positive change.
Then Brookes forwarded the whole exchange to his Northern contact, commenting:
Hi Mark
A quick little inside email re [redacted] and Doug Paulley.
The context suggests “Mark” is Anthony MARK Cutter, chair of NAUG. The SAR disclosures show multiple other similar emails between Brookes and Northern contacts.
Brookes wrote anunsolicited email to Bus Users UK, “in some confidence”:
In that light I do share with you the facts as I know them relating to who fits the story as below. If you know the issue then just to put things into context.
It is important to see that [Charley] is a serial complainer, if you google [Charley] and it shows [John Pring] picks [Charley’s] regular history up.
[Charley] is rather like Doug Paulley who seems on rail to have negative experiences everywhere he goes, which again is picked up by [John Pring].
A good few people find this ‘selective’ news totally unbalanced and in each case the person does not engage.
The Northern contact replied: “Whose press release is that? Thank you for sharing.” Brookes emailed again, subject “Re RDG info URGENT”:
This is in the DP system. The redaction is covered but DP says that I suspect you are right; however the identities of the organisations concerned they have to release,
If this is the case then there will be an issue I have created for [the DPO]. How quickly will RDG release the info and get the Norwich Pharmacal order.
What is your off the record advice please? I will have to resign from [the DPO] before to protect them.
Finally, Brookes emailed the Northern contact at 23:05:
Re [the DPO], my status is that I am a non paid non staff volunteer. But with control lines.
Any help.
Frankly Im worried as it will fall on me through my stupidity. And maybe we need to rethink your links to me.
He has since consistently described his retirement as “health-enforced.” This directly conflicts with the reason he gave his Northern contact: to protect his organisation before RDG revealed he had used his position to defame me.
Organisations considering deploying Brookes in a representative or advisory capacity might like to consider how well he takes his own advice on respect for each other.
![Well, its happened. I have retired from [the DPO] as transport adviser. After medical advice I have made the final moves to change circumstances and relieve pressure on myself so I can concentrate more on my wife and my own health issues.](https://i0.wp.com/www.kingqueen.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/image-3.png?resize=560%2C207&ssl=1)
