Mr C Johnson v Transport for London — 2023

The claimant was a self-employed London taxi driver licensed by Transport for London. The respondent accepted that he was disabled by reason of Spondylosis and Schmorl's Nodes and degenerative disc disease, and conceded at the hearing that it was a qualifications body for the purposes of section 54 Equality Act 2010. The claimant withdrew his claims of direct disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation, leaving a reasonable adjustments claim.

The tribunal found that the respondent applied a PCP requiring all London taxi drivers to use wheelchair accessible vehicles. It accepted that the claimant could work only reduced hours because of his disability and that the PCP placed him at a substantial financial disadvantage compared with non-disabled taxi drivers who were not restricted in their working hours. The respondent had granted and renewed a wheelchair exemption, but the claimant remained required to use a licensed taxi vehicle complying with the Conditions of Fitness.

The claimant's proposed adjustments were to license alternative cheaper vehicles, including a Nissan Leaf and Nissan NV-200 variants, or for the respondent to provide financial assistance by grant, conditional grant or loan. The tribunal found it was objectively reasonable for the respondent to refuse the Nissan Leaf because of its external appearance and non-compliance with the Conditions of Fitness. For the NV-200 proposals, it found that the vehicle was not wheelchair accessible and lacked other features required by the Conditions of Fitness, and that the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence about the modifications and costs needed to show the proposal was viable. The tribunal also found it was objectively reasonable for the respondent not to provide finance, given its role as licensor rather than employer, the absence of an identified fund, and the practical issues of administering and monitoring such support. The reasonable adjustments claim was therefore dismissed.