FOI request detail

Full Recognition of my Vulnerable Adult with Protected Characteristics legal status:On the 3/6/2024 at approximately 4pm. My wife and myself were in: Fw: Incident at London Bridge station

Request ID: FOI-1382-2425
Date published: 22 August 2024

You asked

Dear Elected Members, The impression, I am observing is that I appear to be a nuisance? Morally and in Law, I have a Duty of Care to myself and to my wife ( my Carer). In life, these are basic "Human Rights" principles. This is reinforced, by the reply received below. I have been advised to ref it to [email protected] I will at all times, keep reminding them, of their Public Duty of Care. As previously discussed, TfL and LUL are Public Bodies: I will therefore have to open the debate in terms of a concept of Public Duty of Care. See attached .pdf " speech-231129". On these simple common sense principles. Which are based on Fact and Law. Has the presumed GSM had any legal or medical training? Has any training been undertaken by the GSM relating to dealing with Vulnerable Adults and their Carers. Has the Station Staff had any training with regards to assisting Vulnerable Adults and their Carers. I have a strong opinion, that no statutory training. If I am wrong, TfL and LUL have still a statutory Duty of Care to establish no animosity has been shown towards me and my Carer. I am genuinely concerned that no First Aider was present. My understanding, as I was trained and certified by TfL and LUL, was that I was duty bound to accompany the casualties to Hospital. So, I am clearly surprised by the assumed GSM remark? As previously discussed, I am a Vulnerable Adult with Protected Characteristics along with my Legal Carer. My Protected Characteristics are established in Law under the Equality Act 2010. Therefore my response to the comment "I do not consider that TfL, have undertaken their Public Duty of Care as required under the Equality Act I have raised your concerns about both the cause of the accident and the staff response with the senior manager responsible for the station. She has now reported back to me. An engineer examined the escalator following your accident and found everything to be within tolerance. I am advised that that the linear speed of the moving handrail is very closely governed to ensure its replication of the step band speed, and in the very unlikely event of a malfunction, the machine will stop working due to exceeding the pre-set tolerances and threshold limits set for its safe use. The senior manager is satisfied that the station staff provided duty of care and assisted you in every way that they could. As you did not wish to speak to the ambulance service, they accompanied you to the hospital, which is not something that they are generally required to do." The remarks made by London Bridge staff were very hurtful to myself and to my wife. I will now respond in a "defensive way" Please remember the circumstances after the safety failures of Escalator No.9. Only passengers assist my wife and I. I am convinced that if I asked any of the passengers on the escalator for assistance. They would have immediately utilised their mobile devices to assist my wife and I. Most individuals would use the "Good Samaritan" Principles which is a founding principle of my UK Citizen rights. So, I will complete disregard this remark from a presumed GSM on behalf of Station Staff. I will require a more detailed report on the maintenance regime of Escalator No. 9 along with the stated tolerances. This is to ensure that it meets it's statutory regulations? At a high political level, I appear to be a victim of "The Health and Care Act 2022 (Consequential and Related Amendments) Regulations 2023 implementation. As a Vulnerable Adult with Protected Characteristics along with my unpaid Carer. My aspirations along with my wife, is that as UK Citizens we are fairly and reasonable treated by HM Government in full accordance with our UK Citizen Rights. The Kings Fund "Realising the potential of ics Integration report will explain the issues, far better that we can: see attached report. Apparently, as a Vulnerable Adult with Protected Characteristics along with my Carer; Bexley Council will only consider issues relating to the Care Act 2014. I am currently along with my wife; attempting to obtain full integration of my Health and Care needs with Bexley Council? I have provided medical records concerning my Health and Care needs relating to the London Bridge Escalator No.9 mental and physical health injuries to all parties. In should be duly noted, that I am medical retired from my services with TfL subsidiary services at LUL. I was employed from September 1974 to May 2012, with LUL. So, I am aware of LUL Standards and Protocols. Also, I have medical records at LUL Occupation Health and Safety Unit, which will assist my Health and Care records. My first concern, on reading the redacted London Bridge logbook and the associated redacted IRF00136760909. Was the completely lack of empathy shown to me and my wife. Under the First Aid at Work Act 1981 see hyperlink for further details: https://www.hse.gov.uk/firstaid/what-employers-need-to-do.htm, it is my understanding that a Staff First Aider should be made available, at all times. Please note that during my service at LUL, I was a trained and certificated as a First Aider at Work. Also, I was initially only offered a chair in a busy concourse. My wife was not offered a chair at all. Are you an employer? - First aid at work As an employer you must have first-aid arrangements in your workplace. This advice will help you and includes information on appointing a first-aider and reporting accidents or ill health. www.hse.gov.uk So, I will require video coverage of the upper area of escalator No.9 concourse, so demonstrate my point of view. Along with technical evidence of Escalator No.9. to establish that they are safe to use as determined by HSE Statutory Regulations. I am now tired, and will have to stop writing. I fully appreciate, that all reviews take time and that further safety and medical evidence will need to be provided by both Bexley Council and TfL. Which policy? Bexley Council Policies relating to Integrating Health and Care and Safeguarding the Vulnerable. Council tax number: 801456756 91 Pelham Road Bexleyheath Kent DA7 4LY Original complaint date: 01/09/2022 Now: 30/07/2024

We answered

TfL Ref: FOI-1382-2425 and FOI-1383-2425

 

Thank you again for copying your emails of 30th and 31st July 2024, to TfL’s Freedom of Information Team.

 

Your requests for recorded information have been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.  I can confirm that we hold some of the information you require. 

 

The safety of our staff and customers is always our top priority and London Underground is recognised as one of the safest metros around the world. However, we are never complacent, and continuously strive to reduce injuries.

 

Slips, trips and falls are the biggest cause of accidents on escalators, and we have been trialling and implementing a variety of ways to minimise these incidents and highlight risks and encourage safe use of escalators. These include encouraging customers to hold the handrail; walk or stand safely; be aware of the step or landing interface; and, where available, to use lifts when mobility impaired.
 
Further initiatives to minimise slips, trips and falls include blue footprints on the steps, hand prints on the handrails, contrasting colours to highlight the ‘comb’ between the moving steps and the landings, wording on step risers, new electronic displays, under-step lighting, escalator and lift floor signs, projections of staff members giving safety messages near escalators and frequent public address announcements.
 
Additionally, our safety campaigns, which run throughout the year, use posters in lifts, stations, as well as advertisements on the escalators across the network, to remind our customers of the risks of running on stairs and escalators. We continually monitor the effectiveness of our measures and campaigns in reducing accidents and adjust our approach accordingly.

 

We offer comprehensive help and support to people involved in, or affected by, a life-changing incident on our network via The Sarah Hope Line: https://tfl.gov.uk/campaign/incident-support-service.

 

The answers to your questions that we’ve identified as falling under the FOI Act, are listed follows:

 

Q1: Has the presumed GSM had any legal or medical training? 

 

We assume by ‘GMS’ you mean a member of Station staff or Station Manager. All London Underground Station staff receive First Aid training. This includes London Underground Customer Services assistants, who complete the one-day Emergency First Aid at Work training course as part of their development programme, in line with the First Aid at Work Regulations. Therefore, we have a large number of first aid trained staff across the London Underground network. 

 

Q2: Has any training been undertaken by the GSM relating to dealing with Vulnerable Adults and their Carers. 

 

London Underground staff have a duty of care to passengers to ensure their safety on the network and to ensure that they do not pose a risk to themselves or directly/indirectly to others on the network. They are briefed on how to support vulnerable customers and customers with additional needs. 

 

Q3: Has the Station Staff had any training with regards to assisting Vulnerable Adults and their Carers. 

 

As above. 

 

Q4. I will require a more detailed report on the maintenance regime of Escalator No. 9 along with the stated tolerances. 

 

Machines are serviced at three monthly intervals and the tolerances are checked at these intervals. Please find attached the last three maintenance sheets which show the checks that were undertaken as part of maintenance.

 

Tolerances are set by Section 1097 (Cat 1 standard) which defines the F45 criteria.

 

Q5. Along with technical evidence of Escalator No.9. to establish that they are safe to use as determined by HSE Statutory Regulations. 

 

An engineer examined the escalator following your accident and found everything to be within the required tolerance.Please find the attached form that was completed following your accident. 

 

All of the attachments are built into our maintenance regime which is built to comply with the relevant HSE legislation (https://www.hse.gov.uk/work-equipment-machinery/passenger-lifts.htm). The control equipment monitors the correlation between handrail and step band speed, which is closely continually monitored by independent speed monitoring devices. If the speed varies beyond defined limits, then the machine will trip and come to a controlled stop.

 

Q6. So I will required all evidence required by UK Laws, to fully establish that the escalator was safe for a Vulnerable Adult along with their carer to use safely. 

 

As above. 

 

Please note that in accordance with TfL’s obligations under Data Protection legislation some personal data has been removed from the attached documents, as required by section 40(2) of the FOI Act. This is because disclosure of this personal data would be a breach of the legislation, specifically the first principle which requires all processing of personal data to be fair and lawful. It would not be fair to disclose this personal information when the individuals have no expectation it would be disclosed and TfL has not satisfied one of the conditions which would make the processing ‘fair’.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed. 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Eva Hextall 

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Attachments

Back to top

Want to make a request?

We'll email you the response within 20 working days.


We'll publish the response online without disclosing any personal information.