Routemaster Buses Limited have licence revoked

[philthetube]

Well, if an operator registers a service and, after starting, earns zero revenue then they can't have much business acumen and shouldn't be trading at all! I think that the point being made is that the operator must have sufficient financial reserves to operate the service with another operator competing against them for at least 56 days ( and probably a bit more as it will take a while to decide whether there is a chance of winning the competitive battle).

No doubt that the 56 day rule might discourage under capitalised companies from starting new services - but it also prevents all companies from withdrawing services with minimal notice. Can't have it both ways i'm afraid.

If I register a service using one bus and 2 drivers it will probably cost 30k plus if I get zero revenue. If another operator decides that they do not want me to run in that area they can ensure that I will never try again purely by running in front of me, this is not the intent of this legislation but it is the reality.

If the 56 day rule is to apply then their needs to be protection for the innovative company for at least the 56 days and ideally for longer.

 

[RT4038]

If I register a service using one bus and 2 drivers it will probably cost 30k plus if I get zero revenue. If another operator decides that they do not want me to run in that area they can ensure that I will never try again purely by running in front of me, this is not the intent of this legislation but it is the reality.

If the 56 day rule is to apply then their needs to be protection for the innovative company for at least the 56 days and ideally for longer.

If your company is sufficiently capitalised when you register the service then you will have the resource to build up your business in spite of the competition. Be fully aware of the risk if you don't have the resource. I am always amazed at the number of proprietors who do not consider the possibility and effect of their competitors 'biting back'

And precisely how is an 'innovative' company going to be legally defined against some other sort of company? You attack my business and I will defend it (unless it is not worth defending, in which case I might simply give it you [at 56 days notice of course]). Tying my hands up for 56 days or more, to give you a chance to put your shovel deeper into my business is hardly likely to gain support from the wider business community!
One man's 'innovation' is another man's 'predation'.

 

[northwichcat]

If your company is sufficiently capitalised when you register the service then you will have the resource to build up your business in spite of the competition. Be fully aware of the risk if you don't have the resource. I am always amazed at the number of proprietors who do not consider the possibility and effect of their competitors 'biting back'

And precisely how is an 'innovative' company going to be legally defined against some other sort of company? You attack my business and I will defend it (unless it is not worth defending, in which case I might simply give it you [at 56 days notice of course]). Tying my hands up for 56 days or more, to give you a chance to put your shovel deeper into my business is hardly likely to gain support from the wider business community!
One man's 'innovation' is another man's 'predation'.

The more you post the more you make it sound like the current system is flawed to allow the bigger operators to eliminate the smaller operators regardless of how poorly managed the bigger operators are.

Try to think if it from the passenger's prospective for a minute. The regular 84 passengers probably heard about Arriva reducing the service to hourly and then heard another operator will be running the services that Arriva are no longer running. For ENCTS holders it doesn't really matter who is running the service. For fare paying passengers that's an inconvenience but less of an inconvenience than an hourly service. Then all of a sudden when passengers are expecting a Routemaster Buses service they see a GHA Coaches bus turn up instead - to a normal passenger they aren't going to watch that bus go past because they expect a Routemaster bus to come along 2 minutes later. Then once passengers start to realise there's three operators GHA start circulating misinformation to get passengers to use their services and also start failing to provide services on 3 other routes (with active registrations) to ensure they have enough vehicles and drivers to run the duplicate 84 service.

So, ignoring whether Routemaster's finances were in good shape the passengers on 4 routes suffer because of GHA's actions. Yet instead of the TC stepping in and taking action against GHA they were allowed to continue to operate as normal until HMRC got a court order putting GHA in to administration and the administrators decided there was no way they would restructure GHA in to a smaller profitable businesses so put the assets for sale and closed the business affecting passengers across a very large area.

 

[the101]

Yet instead of the TC stepping in and taking action against GHA they were allowed to continue to operate as normal until HMRC got a court order putting GHA in to administration...

How do you know that GHA was not on the TC's radar before it went bust? You do not.

 

[northwichcat]

How do you know that GHA was not on the TC's radar before it went bust? You do not.

I didn't say the TC wasn't monitoring them I said the TC didn't take any action. If they on the TC's radar then it backs up my point that the system is broken as the TC accepted new registrations from them when they had insufficient funds and resources to run their existing routes.

 

[RT4038]

The more you post the more you make it sound like the current system is flawed to allow the bigger operators to eliminate the smaller operators regardless of how poorly managed the bigger operators are.

Try to think if it from the passenger's prospective for a minute. The regular 84 passengers probably heard about Arriva reducing the service to hourly and then heard another operator will be running the services that Arriva are no longer running. For ENCTS holders it doesn't really matter who is running the service. For fare paying passengers that's an inconvenience but less of an inconvenience than an hourly service. Then all of a sudden when passengers are expecting a Routemaster Buses service they see a GHA Coaches bus turn up instead - to a normal passenger they aren't going to watch that bus go past because they expect a Routemaster bus to come along 2 minutes later. Then once passengers start to realise there's three operators GHA start circulating misinformation to get passengers to use their services and also start failing to provide services on 3 other routes (with active registrations) to ensure they have enough vehicles and drivers to run the duplicate 84 service.

So, ignoring whether Routemaster's finances were in good shape the passengers on 4 routes suffer because of GHA's actions. Yet instead of the TC stepping in and taking action against GHA they were allowed to continue to operate as normal until HMRC got a court order putting GHA in to administration and the administrators decided there was no way they would restructure GHA in to a smaller profitable businesses so put the assets for sale and closed the business affecting passengers across a very large area.

I am not sure that the system is flawed to allow bigger operators to eliminate smaller operators - however a competitive environment certainly is biased towards better financed operators (big or small) - and so it should be. [Otherwise the market will be destabilised by 'fly by night' type players]. The TC may not have been on top of GHA reliability issues, and maybe there was a more deep seated malaise already existing within GHA, undetected by the TC. However, without being within every bus company, the TC can only act upon information received and routine inspections, neither of which may have revealed anything amiss about GHA in this case?

 

[Busaholic]

So, I as an operator, has a commercial idea. Firstly I will inform the Traffic Commissioners so they can then tout my idea to any existing operator to use free of charge (or amend their offering to sabotage the financial viability of my idea).
In every business there is an element of risk; will sufficient customers buy the product at a price that the proprietor can make a profit? In every area of trade many go to the wall. Look before you leap and minimise that risk.

You seem to be arguing that any operator who can satisfy the minimum safety and financial regulations imposed by the Traffic Commissioners should be able to proceed at will, regardless of the consequences to any other operator and, of course, regardless of whether there is any public demand for such a service, 'free enterprise' at its most basic. That is fine, perhaps, but then using this as a model then why on earth should another operator not be able to respond straightaway, rather than after 56 days' notice? This is the point I'm trying to make, two different systems/'philosophies' one overlaid upon the other. A typical British compromise, perhaps, and I'm able to see how ridiculous this is. Full regulation or full deregulation (I personally know which I'd choose) not this wishy-washy nonsense which leads to the subject of this thread.

 

[RT4038]

You seem to be arguing that any operator who can satisfy the minimum safety and financial regulations imposed by the Traffic Commissioners should be able to proceed at will, regardless of the consequences to any other operator and, of course, regardless of whether there is any public demand for such a service, 'free enterprise' at its most basic. That is fine, perhaps, but then using this as a model then why on earth should another operator not be able to respond straightaway, rather than after 56 days' notice? This is the point I'm trying to make, two different systems/'philosophies' one overlaid upon the other. A typical British compromise, perhaps, and I'm able to see how ridiculous this is. Full regulation or full deregulation (I personally know which I'd choose) not this wishy-washy nonsense which leads to the subject of this thread.

The only way to determine 'public demand' is to operate the service. The consequences on another operator will depend on the quality and suitability of the service that this operator gives.
I am certainly not suggesting that a response cannot be made pretty much straight away - 56 days notice is given of new service and nothing to stop existing operator responding on that or within few days, also with 56 days notice. Of course an operator not 'on the ball' who only finds out about new competitor when his vehicles hit the streets will have to wait 56 days to respond.

 

[Busaholic]

The only way to determine 'public demand' is to operate the service. The consequences on another operator will depend on the quality and suitability of the service that this operator gives.
I am certainly not suggesting that a response cannot be made pretty much straight away - 56 days notice is given of new service and nothing to stop existing operator responding on that or within few days, also with 56 days notice. Of course an operator not 'on the ball' who only finds out about new competitor when his vehicles hit the streets will have to wait 56 days to respond.

I don't make a habit of looking at service registrations on the TC's website, but, on the occasions when I have done so locally I've noticed there have been a lot of times when there is a much shorter time than 56 days before their introduction, or perhaps this was just the larger, dominant operators? In each case, I was looking on the date the TC put the info into the public domain.

 

[the101]

I didn't say the TC wasn't monitoring them I said the TC didn't take any action. If they on the TC's radar then it backs up my point that the system is broken as the TC accepted new registrations from them when they had insufficient funds and resources to run their existing routes.

Again, how do you know that the TC was not in the process of taking action? GHA clearly was on the radar, as knowledge of the two wheel loss incidents from some time ago came out at the eventual PI, but no TC in their right mind is going to go in without having built a solid case because there is the risk of being chewed up and spat out by one of the Backhouse Jones Solicitors mob as they earn their (alleged) £325 per hour.

As for accepting new registrations, they have little choice about whether to do so or not as long as they are submitted complete and in order.

 

[northwichcat]

I am certainly not suggesting that a response cannot be made pretty much straight away - 56 days notice is given of new service and nothing to stop existing operator responding on that or within few days, also with 56 days notice. Of course an operator not 'on the ball' who only finds out about new competitor when his vehicles hit the streets will have to wait 56 days to respond.

The operator is required to give 56 days notice to the TC which isn't the same as giving 'on the ball' rival operators 56 days notice. It is now the case that changes are only made public on a weekly basis. I imagine if a request was received by the North West TC on the 23rd December it would be the 11th January before it is made public due to the bank holidays so only 37 days notice for an operator who checks all the registrations on the day they are published and even then they only know about the registration opposed to having a copy of the other operator's timetable. The other operator might only have registered a rival service between 09:30 and 14:30 between a morning and afternoon school run when the existing operator gets highest loadings pre-9am and post-4pm.

 

[northwichcat]

Again, how do you know that the TC was not in the process of taking action? GHA clearly was on the radar, as knowledge of the two wheel loss incidents from some time ago came out at the eventual PI, but no TC in their right mind is going to go in without having built a solid case because there is the risk of being chewed up and spat out by one of the Backhouse Jones Solicitors mob as they earn their (alleged) £325 per hour.

As for accepting new registrations, they have little choice about whether to do so or not as long as they are submitted complete and in order.

You're ignoring the point I'm making. If the TC was aware of their failings (which became obvious at the end of 2015) then the existing system doesn't work because they carried on as normal for another 8 months and even then the reason for their operations ceasing was because HMRC took out a court order against them.

If a drunk driver had crashed a bus killing passengers but continued driving for another 8 months pending the outcome of a court case would you be arguing it's fine because the incident is known about and the outcome of the court case is not yet known?

 

[the101]

You're ignoring the point I'm making. If the TC was aware of their failings (which became obvious at the end of 2015) then the existing system doesn't work because they carried on as normal for another 8 months and even then the reason for their operations ceasing was because HMRC took out a court order against them.

If a drunk driver had crashed a bus killing passengers but continued driving for another 8 months pending the outcome of a court case would you be arguing it's fine because the incident is known about and the outcome of the court case is not yet known?

Not a valid comparison by a long way.

 

[northwichcat]

Not a valid comparison by a long way.

OK let's say the driver caused an accident but didn't kill anyone. That must be on a par with the wheels coming off due to poor maintenance which you brought up yourself. Or are greedy fat cats allowed to threaten passenger and driver safety in order to feed their greed?