|
|
Post by simonk82701 on Aug 5, 2022 11:15:08 GMT
How is this allowed to happen at such short notice? Unless Powells are almost bankrupt, shouldn't the transfer be controlled and appropriate notice given. This is not fair on passengers and staff. It wouldn't surprise me if most services don't run over the next couple of days as drivers effectively go sod this! Am I being unfair here? I thought when the 18 was just about removed at such short notice passengers were being treated with contempt. Do you propose forcing a company that is effectively bankrupt to keep trading despite their losses? They are bust. There is no way they could afford to keep going hence their decision to close. The council/ PTE have a legal obligation to pick up in this situation but it is not likely they will as they have more important things to spend their cash on like providing cheap for people who can afford to pay full fare. Yes in answer to your question, but only for a further 45 days, so that the traffic commissioner can be notified, appropriate notice be given for passengers and SYPTE. SYPTE are trying to cover services from Monday, but have told me they were not made aware of just how bad the situation was until Wednesday. They need time to put alternative operators in place. HCT, who I assume is the parent company, is continuing to trade in other places, so why has the transition be so disorderly? People rely on these services to get to their employment, services which in the main they have had subsidies from taxpayers for years. We can have a discussion about weather the subsidies were high enough anther time, but passengers and their staff deserve better than this! Again we can have a discussion about how SYPTE spends it's resources, and whether they and other governing bodies were asleep at the wheel, but the reality is that to give less than two days notice is the company's fault. They have let things get out of hand and are just able to walk away! If this is not the case why did SYPTE tell me they were "shocked" by the suddenness of the situation. Where I agree completely with you, is that SYPTE needs to look at it's discounted fares and use it's resources far more wisely. I think it also needs to make sure that it carries out full due diligence check possibly annually to ensure that a situation like this is not repeated, and keep a much closer eye of it's contractors. Contactors that after all it, and in turn we pay for! |
 |
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Aug 5, 2022 16:31:30 GMT
Do you propose forcing a company that is effectively bankrupt to keep trading despite their losses? They are bust. There is no way they could afford to keep going hence their decision to close. The council/ PTE have a legal obligation to pick up in this situation but it is not likely they will as they have more important things to spend their cash on like providing cheap for people who can afford to pay full fare. Yes in answer to your question, but only for a further 45 days, so that the traffic commissioner can be notified, appropriate notice be given for passengers and SYPTE. SYPTE are trying to cover services from Monday, but have told me they were not made aware of just how bad the situation was until Wednesday. They need time to put alternative operators in place. HCT, who I assume is the parent company, is continuing to trade in other places, so why has the transition be so disorderly? People rely on these services to get to their employment, services which in the main they have had subsidies from taxpayers for years. We can have a discussion about weather the subsidies were high enough anther time, but passengers and their staff deserve better than this! Again we can have a discussion about how SYPTE spends it's resources, and whether they and other governing bodies were asleep at the wheel, but the reality is that to give less than two days notice is the company's fault. They have let things get out of hand and are just able to walk away! If this is not the case why did SYPTE tell me they were "shocked" by the suddenness of the situation. Where I agree completely with you, is that SYPTE needs to look at it's discounted fares and use it's resources far more wisely. I think it also needs to make sure that it carries out full due diligence check possibly annually to ensure that a situation like this is not repeated, and keep a much closer eye of it's contractors. Contactors that after all it, and in turn we pay for! The fact that the PTE were shocked goes to show how little contact they have with whoever they choose to lay their contracts with. It is illegal for a company to continue trading when it knows it can not meet its obligations. Yes the parent company is still trading, as are several other subsidiaries. They are separate concerns and independent limited companies. Propping one up from another is against everything a limited company should do. Yes its tough on customers, ( I have a different view on the staff but best left at that for now). This is so similar to another operator the PTE put all their eggs in the basket of. Remember Veolia and the shambles as they disintegrated? Remember the chaos as Tates went down? The PTE have a proven track record of going cheap and paying the price for it. |
|
|
|
|
Post by simonk82701 on Aug 5, 2022 22:17:48 GMT
Yes in answer to your question, but only for a further 45 days, so that the traffic commissioner can be notified, appropriate notice be given for passengers and SYPTE. SYPTE are trying to cover services from Monday, but have told me they were not made aware of just how bad the situation was until Wednesday. They need time to put alternative operators in place. HCT, who I assume is the parent company, is continuing to trade in other places, so why has the transition be so disorderly? People rely on these services to get to their employment, services which in the main they have had subsidies from taxpayers for years. We can have a discussion about weather the subsidies were high enough anther time, but passengers and their staff deserve better than this! Again we can have a discussion about how SYPTE spends it's resources, and whether they and other governing bodies were asleep at the wheel, but the reality is that to give less than two days notice is the company's fault. They have let things get out of hand and are just able to walk away! If this is not the case why did SYPTE tell me they were "shocked" by the suddenness of the situation. Where I agree completely with you, is that SYPTE needs to look at it's discounted fares and use it's resources far more wisely. I think it also needs to make sure that it carries out full due diligence check possibly annually to ensure that a situation like this is not repeated, and keep a much closer eye of it's contractors. Contactors that after all it, and in turn we pay for! The fact that the PTE were shocked goes to show how little contact they have with whoever they choose to lay their contracts with. It is illegal for a company to continue trading when it knows it can not meet its obligations. Yes the parent company is still trading, as are several other subsidiaries. They are separate concerns and independent limited companies. Propping one up from another is against everything a limited company should do. Yes its tough on customers, ( I have a different view on the staff but best left at that for now). This is so similar to another operator the PTE put all their eggs in the basket of. Remember Veolia and the shambles as they disintegrated? Remember the chaos as Tates went down? The PTE have a proven track record of going cheap and paying the price for it. I agree with you here, I think the main problem is the SYPTE has to follow tendering rules which mean that the contract legally has to go to the lowest bidder. Companies will also I think offer a better price for multiple routes in blocks of work. Therefore as you say all the eggs end up in the same basket. I really do think that SYPTE MUST buck their ideas up and start keeping a closer eye of the contractors who provide their service. I have heard allegations today and I must stress only allegations, that the diesel bill hadn't been paid for months, and staff were filling up at Morrisions supermarket as no one would supply them. If this was indeed the case, how did it come as a shock to SYPTE and other stakeholders? Wake up guys, look at what is going on around you! That's all I can say! |
|
|
|
|
Post by duncan on Aug 6, 2022 12:12:09 GMT
I agree with you here, I think the main problem is the SYPTE has to follow tendering rules which mean that the contract legally has to go to the lowest bidder. Companies will also I think offer a better price for multiple routes in blocks of work. Therefore as you say all the eggs end up in the same basket. I really do think that SYPTE MUST buck their ideas up and start keeping a closer eye of the contractors who provide their service. I have heard allegations today and I must stress only allegations, that the diesel bill hadn't been paid for months, and staff were filling up at Morrisions supermarket as no one would supply them. If this was indeed the case, how did it come as a shock to SYPTE and other stakeholders? Wake up guys, look at what is going on around you! That's all I can say! Slightly wrong there. They are obliged to accept the tender that represents the BEST VALUE, a company that can fulfil the contract to its end and NOT fail part way though is good value and is clear in this instance they were tendering at an unsustainable price. |
|
|
|
|
Post by simonk82701 on Aug 6, 2022 21:47:04 GMT
I agree with you here, I think the main problem is the SYPTE has to follow tendering rules which mean that the contract legally has to go to the lowest bidder. Companies will also I think offer a better price for multiple routes in blocks of work. Therefore as you say all the eggs end up in the same basket. I really do think that SYPTE MUST buck their ideas up and start keeping a closer eye of the contractors who provide their service. I have heard allegations today and I must stress only allegations, that the diesel bill hadn't been paid for months, and staff were filling up at Morrisions supermarket as no one would supply them. If this was indeed the case, how did it come as a shock to SYPTE and other stakeholders? Wake up guys, look at what is going on around you! That's all I can say! Slightly wrong there. They are obliged to accept the tender that represents the BEST VALUE, a company that can fulfil the contract to its end and NOT fail part way though is good value and is clear in this instance they were tendering at an unsustainable price. Yes that makes sense. I know when I looked at a publicly available spreadsheet at SYPTE. it always mentioned the highest bid in £, and the lowest bid. The lowest of the two numbers always seem to have been awarded the contract. Okay this was a few years ago. Now they just put the total cost per year, or per school day most of the time. I would like to think that value is always considered, but who knows. |
|
|
|
|
Post by bususer on Aug 18, 2022 14:20:28 GMT
In my humble opinion the rot set in about the mid 1990s when competition stated to drop out of the Sheffield bus market. Since then the frequency has got gradually less and fares have got gradually more.
|
|
|
