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.
I’ve been campaigning for disabled people’s transport rights for years. I’m a wheelchair user. I’ve worked with transport operators, given evidence to Parliament, and I’ve challenged the industry when it fails disabled people.
On 13 February, I received the results of a Subject Access Request to the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) showing what staff and members say about me. What I found has shaken me.
I’m publishing these internal communications in the public interest, given what they reveal about how the rail industry views disabled passengers and their advocates.
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.
They have known me for decades, and yet still think I sue for the money?! Staffing barrow crossing stations, rail replacement bus accessibility and assistance fail redress reform – all came from legal action they’d rather I hadn’t taken. They call this ‘bullying’, but the courts call it discrimination. It is so much easier to accuse somebody of being in it for avarice than to own the judges’ findings.
I don’t have much money. I live in a care home in Yorkshire. Asking for compensation, not just warm words, drives change. Companies can write letters at no cost, but paying makes a difference to them. No bunch of flowers has ever provided a ramp. Only people who can’t imagine someone fighting for civil rights without a profit motive would think otherwise.
Labeled a Vandal
In October 2025, whilst in Manchester Victoria I tried a “Welcome Point” – an automated kiosk that many fear will replace human assistance. They are shiny, cheap, pointless distractions from the unshiny and costly industry failure to commit to accessible infrastructure.
The @RailDeliveryGrp "Welcome Point" demonstrates its complete lack of a) functionality b) point, again. Disabled travellers need staff, not stupid dysfunctional ego-boosting wasteful projects like this. pic.twitter.com/bKXpkVPjV1
I filmed myself pressing the assistance button and the touchscreen to test responsiveness. I didn’t damage anything. I didn’t spray paint it. I attempted to use it as a passenger does, only to find that it isn’t fit for purpose, which my video above demonstrates.
(I’m sad it didn’t work, because the accessibility step change when it does is amazing. Oh, wait…)
Hey @northernassist Is this what's supposed to happen when a disabled passenger turns up at the designated disabled people's welcome point at Harrogate Station and attempts to register for prebooked assistance? Notably also there's no loop, though it has a loop sign… pic.twitter.com/CRZnR9cGMB
In the RDG internal chat logs, staff didn’t discuss whether the machine worked. They railed at being shown that the accessibility Emperor has no clothes. One wrote:
I bet Doug looks a bit silly now, with his video of vandalising a TOC property!
Testing accessibility isn’t vandalism. It’s exactly what advocates should do. But RDG staff saw it as an opportunity to mock me.
Ha. If we’re getting challenged by Doug Paulley, then we’re definitely doing something right.
A disabled person raising accessibility concerns is seen as validation that they’re on the right track. As if this is all a game.
Weaponising Us
But the personal abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. The documents reveal a deliberate strategy to pit disabled people against one another.
Staff repeatedly referenced their “stakeholders” and “endorsers”. What they meant was disabled people and charities that supported Welcome Points. One message stated:
We have a strong cross-section of disability stakeholders in support, and that will drown out any opposition when we move towards rollout.
We have support of organisations and those with lived experience who are in full support of the WP’s… Our stock is high; it will take more than opportunistic mudslinging to knock us off course
This is tokenism at its worst. RDG cultivated relationships with certain disabled people and organisations, not to genuinely address accessibility, but to use them as shields against criticism. The plan was to point to their “disability stakeholders” to show the government all is well, dismissing concerns from disabled people like me as (supposedly) just a single, embittered voice.
We see this divide-and-conquer strategy more and more in the railway industry: the “good” disabled people who cooperate versus the “difficult” ones who challenge and push for better accessibility. Organisations that really want change bring critical friends to the table, rather than hand-picking people who nod along to every proposal.
They briefed the Department for Transport not on the accessibility failure I’d identified, but on how to manage me as a media problem. They recruited a government department into their reputation management strategy.
Strategic Silence
What disturbed me most was the coordination. When I posted about Welcome Points, staff advised each other to “keep our powder dry” and avoid engagement. They wanted to wait until they could launch a “positive push” with endorsements from other disability groups – groups with which the RDG can control the narrative.
He’s a professional campaigner and never going to give us the thumbs up or any support. Stakeholders have reiterated that this will be always be the case with Doug.
This isn’t how you treat legitimate concerns; it is a cynical attempt to manage a PR problem.
A Chorus, Not a Solo
On 13 February, RDG’s CEO Office Director sent me an apology, together with the SAR documents. It acknowledged that the comments were “not acceptable” and said it was “instigating formal action against the individual responsible“.
The individual. Singular.
But these weren’t isolated comments from one person. Multiple people participated across different teams- including, it appears, some from outside RDG itself. This was culture, not one bad apple.
In all the pages of chat logs and emails, not once did a single member of staff step in to say, “This is inappropriate,” or “Actually, he has a point.” When someone called me a “vandal“, colleagues didn’t correct them; they agreed. In a corporate environment, silence is endorsement.
The letter says these views don’t represent RDG’s values. The evidence suggests they absolutely do.
Rotten Culture
I’m not sharing these emails for sympathy, but because they reveal something important about how the rail industry views disabled passengers. What we always expected, we now have in writing.
If this is how they treat someone with a public profile and legal knowledge, imagine how they view ordinary disabled passengers who dare to complain about inaccessible stations or failed assists. Everything is a PR problem for them, not a welcome opportunity to reflect and improve.
The Equality Act requires reasonable adjustments. The industry doesn’t even achieve that, but even if it did, legal compliance is meaningless if the culture treats disabled people’s needs as inconveniences and their advocates as enemies. And it’s even more appalling when they use some disabled people as tokens to silence others.
No Role in GBR
I’ve sent RDG a formal non-compliance notice demanding the identities of those who made defamatory statements. If they refuse, I’ll pursue legal remedies.
But beyond individual accountability, this exposes how the industry treats disabled passengers’ needs – as PR problems, not opportunities to improve.
That culture has no place in the new Great British Railways.
The messages are public now. The culture is exposed.
![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)
