|
Title: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: ChrisB on June 17, 2011, 10:56:58 Yesterday, in a parliamentary written reply, Norman Baker, Under-secretary of State for Transport confirmed a fine of ^350,000.
Can anyone find this on the Government website? Chiltern have welcomed the drop in fine from that proposed, and accept that they broke their franchise rules in 2009. Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: paul7575 on June 17, 2011, 11:47:00 http://assets.dft.gov.uk/consultations/dft-2011-12/2011-12.pdf
Took a bit of finding - they've rejigged their website... Paul Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: devon_metro on June 17, 2011, 15:52:33 How is fining a company at all beneficial to passengers? Arriva will only find cost-cutting measures elsewhere to fund this!
Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: ChrisB on June 17, 2011, 15:54:53 Not if they want to retain the franchise in 10 years time....
Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: bobm on June 17, 2011, 18:02:12 I think it is particularly unfortunate that Chiltern have been fined given all the work they have done (and are continuing to do) improving the infrastructure and services in their area. Bit of a kick in the teeth really.
Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: ChrisB on June 17, 2011, 19:01:28 Sorry, but they shouldn't have given their precious WSMR a raid on their fareboxes @ Banbury & Leamington then.....
Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: bobm on June 17, 2011, 19:07:10 I suspect that's what triggered the largest part of the fine but things like a waiting shelter being a month late is hardly the end of the world.
Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: ChrisB on June 17, 2011, 19:12:42 No, the ORR was using those to cover off the boxes. I reckon the raids / stops were the real reason.
Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: Steve Bray on June 17, 2011, 19:32:49 And how did the irregularities come to light? Did any passengers complain? Would the fine have accelerated the decision to withdraw the W&S services?
Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: ChrisB on June 17, 2011, 19:48:33 Yes, pasengers did complain, I heard, to both the company & the ORR.
I suspect the ORR was talking to Chiltern & their owners well before the ORR made it public. The loss of the open stops @ those two stations was probably the final nail in WSMRs coffin. As the press release stated on closure, the company had been losing over ^1million annually and losing the fairbox money back to Chiltern persuaded all that they were never going to break even without farebox raids *somewhere* Shame really, but there just wasn't the peak pax from Shropshire to keep it going at that intesity of staff & kit. Anyone know what's become of the Wrexham depot? Who owns it? Has it reverted to the Welsh Government, who funded it? Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: JayMac on June 17, 2011, 20:26:09 I suspect that's what triggered the largest part of the fine but things like a waiting shelter being a month late is hardly the end of the world. A bit of consistency from ORR/DfT wouldn't go amiss when it comes to handing out fines for late delivery of franchise commitments. Both Chiltern and CrossCountry have been fined for late delivery of specific commitments. Yet FGW have so far escaped any punishment or public censure for failing to meet their franchise commitment deadlines with regard to CIS, CCTV and PA. Are First Group just better than DB/Arriva at keeping the politicians and Sir Humphreys sweet? No, the ORR was using those to cover off the boxes. I reckon the raids / stops were the real reason. One assumes that that is personal opinion. Would the ORR/Dft even be allowed to use that reason for a fine? The Railways Act 1993 is the legislation used for such fines and it is unclear from that act that such 'collusion' between operators amounts to a breach of franchise operation. Neither side is saying publicly that Chiltern were fined for allowing it's sister company to abstract revenue. Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: ChrisB on June 17, 2011, 21:24:38 Maybe Chiltern did a deal to achieve a lower charge? The DfT certainly hint at that with the PSR service being operated by WSMR being a major part of the fine. Also, the ORR refused to allow that to cintine & required Chiltern to go back to limited stops in May11 if they hadn't folded first.
Either way, that would have been the end of the farebox raids, meaning further losses, hence the decision to fold Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: paul7575 on June 17, 2011, 22:39:55 When I checked the track access applications a while back I noticed that in the period immediately after the WSMR 'open calls' it was pretty clear that Chiltern knew they'd made an error.
This paragraph in the 75th supplementary (Mar 2010) for instance, suggests they had already been made aware: Quote The changes arise from the fact that Chiltern will breach and potentially commit an event of default in its Franchise Agreement if after May 2010 it continues to rely on WSMR services to partially fulfil its PSR at Banbury and Leamington Spa. If approved the changes sought by this 75th STAA will enable Chiltern to comply with its PSR without relying on WSMR, and will avoid the risk of breach or default under its Franchise Agreement. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/track%20access/2%20completed%20consultations/2010/2010.03.26%20chiltern%2075th%20sa%20-%20consultation%20closed%2015%20april%202010/form%2022%2075th%20may%202010%20260310.pdf (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/track%20access/2%20completed%20consultations/2010/2010.03.26%20chiltern%2075th%20sa%20-%20consultation%20closed%2015%20april%202010/form%2022%2075th%20may%202010%20260310.pdf) Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: JayMac on June 17, 2011, 23:03:25 Thank-you for that linked document paul7755. That does rather hint at Chiltern having their wrists slapped for breaching their Passenger Service Requirement.
Still begs the question as to why ORR/DfT didn't include that potential breach in the reasons for issuing the fine to Chiltern. Smoke and Mirrors......? :P ;) ;D Title: Re: Chiltern fined ^350,000 for breaking franchise Post by: ChrisB on June 18, 2011, 07:49:27 Nothing 'potential' about it.
That STAA was correcting the breach that, as the DfT states in their documentation, occurred when they introduced a changed leaf-fall TT the autumn before. This STAA was to regularise that position. So the ORR was aware by the time this was submitted, and possibly they requested that Chiltern submit this STAA as they had already been in discussions since Chiltern intro-ed their 'incorrrect' leaf-fall TT? This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |