Basil Jet wrote:
Tim Fenton wrote:
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically
to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have
been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.
There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six
months rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical
certificate supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they
have the appropriate and current insurance for public hire.

Okay, but all of these things are to prevent the minicab driver from ending
or ruining the life of the customer, not to ensure that he actually provides
a service to the customer or the city. For instance a minicab office which
tells a tourist that such and such is miles away when it's really around the
corner, and then charges the tourist a fortune for a circuitous ride, would
be in no danger of losing its "PCO approved" status.

And they have to have The Knowledge ...

Minicabs are not required to have The Knowledge, or a satnav or even a map.


A kind taxi driver in London, where I am not resident, once told me the
way to the street I needed, which was in walking distance. I doubt
whether the response from a minicab driver would have been the same.

In message , at 07:17:38 on Sat, 18
Jul 2009, Martin Edwards remarked:
but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?
It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

Until the next company screwed up too.

No, operationally it's all gone fine so far, even with the several
changes of "operator".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:43:56 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Bruce remarked:
But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC, as I
presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine Holt's new
outfit?

The procedures are all set down in "TUPE", which is short for
"Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations".

There exists a vast amount of expertise in applying these regulations.

Tony,

TUPE doesn't apply to ROSCOs, websites and office leases
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:52:15 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Tony Polson remarked:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs.

Quite marked differences between Cambridge City and South Cambs, aiui.
--
Roland Perry

On Jul 17, 3:19*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:14:11 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? *Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

That was different -- I think GNER ran it for a while under a management
contract before NX won the new franchise.

So you don't think the DfT will contract NXEC to run it for a while?
Maybe not, as they seem to have a new trading vehicle ready to go.

No. I think that's the whole point - NXEC seemingly offered to do just
that (i.e. run teh service under a management contract), and it
appears likely that that was the quid-pro-quo in return for NXEC's
offer of a £100 million payment to the DfT to settle things and
terminate the franchise 'cleanly'. But Adonis wasn't having that, of
course.

The very fact that NXEC signalled its intention to default to the DfT
(unless trading conditions radically improve) has meant that the DfT
can prepare specific arrangements for an 'operator-in-waiting' (led by
Elaine Holt), ready to take over ICEC services when NXEC eventually
goes kaput after its long and drawn out death. The fact that whilst
this is going on, NXEC are meanwhile coming out with proclamations
implying that everything is hunky dory is simply utterly disingenuous
of them.

On Jul 17, 8:52*pm, Bruce wrote:
There is a huge variation around the country in the local authorities'
requirements for minicabs. *I have a friend who use to run a minicab
business in Aylesbury, but now runs a similar business in Middlesex.

Time traveller, is he?

(for m.t.u-t'ers, Middlesex hasn't existed for 44 years)

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:21:49 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:
Tim Fenton wrote:
"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
The only feature of London minicabs which is designed specifically
to serve
the interest of the public rather than the interest of the minicab
drivers/bosses is the fact that the drivers are verified to have
been convicted of no rapes since coming to this country.
There's more to it than that. Vehicles have to be MOT'd every six
months rather than every year, drivers have to have a medical
certificate supplied by their GP and they have to prove that they
have the appropriate and current insurance for public hire.
Okay, but all of these things are to prevent the minicab driver from
ending or ruining the life of the customer, not to ensure that he
actually provides a service to the customer or the city. For instance a
minicab office which tells a tourist that such and such is miles away
when it's really around the corner, and then charges the tourist a
fortune for a circuitous ride, would be in no danger of losing its "PCO
approved" status.

And they have to have The Knowledge ...
Minicabs are not required to have The Knowledge, or a satnav or even a
map.

A kind taxi driver in London, where I am not resident, once told me the
way to the street I needed, which was in walking distance. I doubt
whether the response from a minicab driver would have been the same.

His actions may not have been born out of kindness, Martin. 'Black Cab'
drivers are not allowed to decline fares (within certain maximums.) They
are, understandably, reluctant to accept a short journey if, for example,
they have just spent a long time waiting to get to the front of a long
taxi rank. I bet it would have been a different story if you had hailed
him on the street.

--
Fig

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:48:48 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:19:11 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:

But who employs the staff? With whom are the ROSCO lease contracts?
And the Web site? And the office leases? If these are with NXEC,
as I presume they must be, how do they pass smoothly to Elaine
Holt's new outfit?


The procedures are all set down in "TUPE", which is short for
"Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations".

There exists a vast amount of expertise in applying these regulations.

Doesn't TUPE only cover the staff transfer?


Yes, I should have pointed that out. I just wanted to make the point
that TUPE is a well-tried system for transferring people from one
organisation to another doing the same job.

In the event of TOC default, the ROSCO leases automatically revert to
DfT Rail - that's how the DfT guarantee works.

The Web site and office leases remain the responsibility of the TOC
unless separate arrangements are made for transfer. I would expect
those arrangements will be under negotiation and will be in place for
when NXEC walks away, assuming that is still their intention.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 00:53:10 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
On Jul 17, 3:19*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:14:11 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? *Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

That was different -- I think GNER ran it for a while under a management
contract before NX won the new franchise.

So you don't think the DfT will contract NXEC to run it for a while?
Maybe not, as they seem to have a new trading vehicle ready to go.

No. I think that's the whole point - NXEC seemingly offered to do just
that (i.e. run teh service under a management contract), and it
appears likely that that was the quid-pro-quo in return for NXEC's
offer of a £100 million payment to the DfT to settle things and
terminate the franchise 'cleanly'. But Adonis wasn't having that, of
course.

The very fact that NXEC signalled its intention to default to the DfT
(unless trading conditions radically improve) has meant that the DfT
can prepare specific arrangements for an 'operator-in-waiting' (led by
Elaine Holt), ready to take over ICEC services when NXEC eventually
goes kaput after its long and drawn out death. The fact that whilst
this is going on, NXEC are meanwhile coming out with proclamations
implying that everything is hunky dory is simply utterly disingenuous
of them.


I wonder whether the negotiated settlement that included the payment
of £100 million from NXEC would not have been the best (or, more
accurately, least worst) option for all concerned. Especially given
that NXEC had negotiated the deal with the Department in good faith,
and it only needed both sides to sign up.

Adonis seems to have gone out on a limb here. His officials had done
everything to secure what they considered a good deal for the
taxpayer, and certainly not behind the unelected Baron's back, but he
decided to renege on the deal - or rather not implement it.

It seems to me that there are two possible reasons for the unelected
Baron's conduct; first, that he wanted to discourage other TOCs from
trying to negotiate similar deals, to the detriment of the franchising
system as a whole, and second, that he wanted to at least threaten NX
very publicly with the loss of their other two franchises, to show
that he was being tough. But what's the point?

The whole system of franchising is so widely and deeply discredited,
and it would be a very good thing for the country if it was replaced
with a much simpler and more integrated system. However, that isn't
going to happen under Labour, so I think Adonis should instead have
taken a more pragmatic approach and found ways to make the system work
less badly.

The already agreed deal with NXEC, negotiated with his full knowledge
and approval up to the point he decided not to sign, should have gone
ahead. The Department should then have been slightly more receptive
to deals with those other TOCs who are in trouble because of the
severity of the recession, even to the point of seeing several of them
switch to GNER-style management contracts.

This sorry saga calls into question the ability of the unelected Baron
to do his job. Decisions of this magnitude need rather more careful
consideration than he seems capable of giving.

His track record isn't great, either. When the buzz of publicity that
surrounded the launch of the government's City Academy scheme died
down, and the actual performance of the Academies was evaluated, it
became clear that rather than being a solution to a problem, they
simply created their own new problems while solving nothing at all.

The form of contracts used to create the Academies was demonstrably
not fit for purpose, and will cause massive long term problems that
are not so dissimilar to those caused by the equally unfit rail
franchise agreements and the appalling PFI deals in the NHS.

It all points to someone who has some good ideas, even flashes of
brilliance, but is possibly not someone who can be relied on to make
the right medium- and long-term decisions.

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:17:38 +0100, Martin Edwards
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:41:06 on
Fri, 17 Jul 2009, Recliner remarked:
Leave The Market to sort everything out in everyone's best interests.
The Market is a benign force for Good, unlike Regulation, which is
Evil.

So you'd prefer that all NXEC's customers lost their money (tickets
bought in advance etc) if they cease trading?

Obviously that won't happen,

Because it's regulated, and not a free market.

but I wonder what the exact mechanism for the transfer will be? Will
the new DfT ECML operating company simply take over NXEC, complete
with all its staff, leases, assets, contracts, etc, or will there be
some messy transfer of all of these to the new company?

It seemed to work OK when GNER handed back the keys.

Until the next company screwed up too. Say what you like about
Stalin...........



Are you sure you didn't mean Mussolini?