Hulley's of Baslow

[robertclark125]

Slightly off topic, but wasn't Hulleys once called Silver Service for a bit, with a base in Darley Dale? If so when did the name change occur?

 

[Teapot42]

I don’t have a single idea on running businesses so i’m only going off what i’ve been told but I was under the impression that go coach was alfs own purchase. I may be wrong and stand to be corrected but I 100% do know that other people at hulleys can and do manage the finances.

From what I can gather, and like many companies, the structure isn't that simple. There will be ultimate common ownership, but Hulleys and Go Coach won't have been directly linked.

Replacements for the final 3 are yet to be sourced, hence why they haven’t left yet.

While AWK claims plenty of E200s on the market, I'm not sure how good they are. Most I've seen are 15+ years old and if the MMCs don't need to go back urgently then best to take time and find something which can be part of the fleet for 5 years rather than 6 months.

The routes/trips that were withdrawn were all commercial services that were running at a loss and had been for some time.

I'd argue against that slightly. The 6 had only been running a few months, and the 55 extension likewise. The evening 271 journey is often busy so it doesn't seem to make sense to cut that.

 

[Goldfish62]

From what I can gather, and like many companies, the structure isn't that simple. There will be ultimate common ownership, but Hulleys and Go Coach won't have been directly linked.

Both owned by Modeldart Ltd (source: Companies House).

 

[IamTrainsYT]

if the MMCs don't need to go back urgently then best to take time and find something which can be part of the fleet for 5 years rather than 6 months.

Precisely, the last 2 E200s acquired have been lovely buses on the face but both unfortunately suffered death by OXMO warning light.

I'd argue against that slightly. The 6 had only been running a few months, and the 55 extension likewise. The evening 271 journey is often busy so it doesn't seem to make sense to cut that.

The 6 was an intended as a replacement for stagecoaches 5 when they proposed the cancellation of it. Unfortunately stagecoach backtracked on that decision and with the 6 already running it was doomed from the start. Nobody used it except the school bus and the odd time the 5 didn’t show up and as a result was carting fresh air around for 4 months.

As for the 55 extension, that was essentially “it seemed like a good idea at the time” sort of thing that never took off (much like any other previous services that ran to the designer outlet) it took up an extra bus, replaced the section to somercoates that was BSIP funded and once again carted fresh air around for 4 months. The 55 is the best earning route for hulleys and that extension was a massive blow to the service financially. Now its gone, back to 3 buses, and the somercoates section is back & funded the route is doing much better for itself.

The evening 271 journey still runs, its the 17:36 272 that was removed which was based off the 257 timetable changes. The bus that used to work the 15:55 257a from bakewell would then form this trip but now that the 257 timetable has changed, it now runs the 17:30 (last) 257 from sheffield. Therefore theres essentially no bus to work this 272 service and the cost of running a bus dead just to work one trip far outweighs the income made from the small number of people that used it.
For the record, I personally disagree with some of the 257 timetable changes made but my sole purpose of involving myself in this thread was to hopefully squash some rumours so i’ll save my moaning!

 

[Teapot42]

The 6 was an intended as a replacement for stagecoaches 5 when they proposed the cancellation of it. Unfortunately stagecoach backtracked on that decision and with the 6 already running it was doomed from the start. Nobody used it except the school bus and the odd time the 5 didn’t show up and as a result was carting fresh air around for 4 months.

I wonder how many people use the 5 to be honest. Anyone in Brampton having to travel all the way via Newbold seems unlikely. The 6, at least as far as Ashgate, made more sense. Not sure why Stagecoach felt the need to fight on that route, both would have been better off doing their own thing.

As for the 55 extension, that was essentially “it seemed like a good idea at the time” sort of thing that never took off (much like any other previous services that ran to the designer outlet) it took up an extra bus, replaced the section to somercoates that was BSIP funded and once again carted fresh air around for 4 months. The 55 is the best earning route for hulleys and that extension was a massive blow to the service financially. Now its gone, back to 3 buses, and the somercoates section is back & funded the route is doing much better for itself.

These things take time to take off, but to be honest I think it also needed to be a faster service from Chesterfield to really work. A lot of people comment how well the Comet does, running something on the opposite half-hour that extends to East Midlands outlet would be more attractive, but would need an extra vehicle again.

The evening 271 journey still runs, its the 17:36 272 that was removed which was based off the 257 timetable changes.

Sorry, yes, 272. I sometimes lose track of which run as a 271 and which as a 272. I'm pretty sure more people would use it than the evening 6 that has been retained.

For the record, I personally disagree with some of the 257 timetable changes

The 257 is an odd one. For ages it was not only infrequent but erratic, when it was the 273/4/5, then when the X57 was introduced the section to Ladybower became hourly which seemed to work OK, but the section beyond there seems to be a struggle to decide what to do.

It would almost seem to make more sense to serve Castleton via the 257 route, and Grindleford to Bakewell via the 272 route.

 

[derbybusdepot]

Precisely, the last 2 E200s acquired have been lovely buses on the face but both unfortunately suffered death by OXMO warning light.

The 6 was an intended as a replacement for stagecoaches 5 when they proposed the cancellation of it. Unfortunately stagecoach backtracked on that decision and with the 6 already running it was doomed from the start. Nobody used it except the school bus and the odd time the 5 didn’t show up and as a result was carting fresh air around for 4 months.

As for the 55 extension, that was essentially “it seemed like a good idea at the time” sort of thing that never took off (much like any other previous services that ran to the designer outlet) it took up an extra bus, replaced the section to somercoates that was BSIP funded and once again carted fresh air around for 4 months. The 55 is the best earning route for hulleys and that extension was a massive blow to the service financially. Now its gone, back to 3 buses, and the somercoates section is back & funded the route is doing much better for itself.

The evening 271 journey still runs, its the 17:36 272 that was removed which was based off the 257 timetable changes. The bus that used to work the 15:55 257a from bakewell would then form this trip but now that the 257 timetable has changed, it now runs the 17:30 (last) 257 from sheffield. Therefore theres essentially no bus to work this 272 service and the cost of running a bus dead just to work one trip far outweighs the income made from the small number of people that used it.
For the record, I personally disagree with some of the 257 timetable changes made but my sole purpose of involving myself in this thread was to hopefully squash some rumours so i’ll save my moaning!

The problem is that when none of the good ideas work out, they become very expensive exercises, and compromise the rest of the operations viability. Alot of effort seems to go into the new ventures, but as you say many look doomed to fail before they even started - if they even did at all.

Hopefully going forward they will be more stable and only try to expand services that they know will be viable, tenders and bsip funded work for example - that are almost guaranteed to make money.

 

[AWK]

The service changes weren’t made to get rid of the mmcs, it was a decision made afterwards. The routes/trips that were withdrawn were all commercial services that were running at a loss and had been for some time. the decision was ultimately made to cut them mainly so it reduced the amount of drivers and buses required per day in order to increase reliability further but also to cut costs where money was being spent unnecessarily. (As you are probably aware theres nationwide issues with Bus Driver shortages & Bus parts shortages) so by having the same amount of buses but less required for service it allows more spare vehicles which could potentially have affected a service running in the past if enough buses were VOR. The size of the hulleys fleet has not changed. MMCs 1 & 30 left and solo 18 & Decker 22 arrived in their place.


It was short notice, but not as short notice as you think. unfortunately with it being done just before Christmas/new year period it was all processed by Derbyshire County Council very late. I think it ended up being about 30 days but I couldn’t tell you for certain!

With respect, a hole is being dug here!

The Traffic Commissioner requires a minimum of 42 days notice to cancel, register or amend a service.

"You must tell the local authority in England or the local council in Scotland that you’re changing or cancelling a bus service. You must do this 28 days before you apply to the traffic commissioner.

Apply to the traffic commissioner at least 42 days before your service changes or stops - or 56 days before if your service is in Wales." - https://www.gov.uk/run-local-bus-service/changing-or-cancelling-a-bus-service

There are reasons why a registration can be made at short-notice which are detailed in full under the "Period of Notice" heading at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/a-guide...ating-local-bus-services-in-england-and-wales. The only one that may possibly come in to play due to the illness of the owner - though I would suggest that the Traffic Commissioner would expect an operator with 19 vehicles authorised would have processes in place so that more than 1 person in the organisation able to register/amend services:

(g) where, due to circumstances which were not reasonably foreseen, you failed to make an application in sufficient time for the period of notice. You should provide full details on the application as to why it could not have been foreseen

Poor performance of commercial trips is NOT a valid reason for short-notice changes. Indeed, serveral operators have had their licences revoked in the past for not obeying the standard 42 day notice period. Suggest you read https://www.route-one.net/legal/north_warwickshire_travel_director_disqualified_indefinitely/ - whilst this is a more extreme example than Hulleys, the TC made it clear that staff shortages or vehicle shortages are not sufficient reason for short notice cancellations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2025 ==

Precisely, the last 2 E200s acquired have been lovely buses on the face but both unfortunately suffered death by OXMO warning light.

So need some money to spend on them to sort them out. Again, other operators seem to manage this.

And if E200s are out of flavour a quick look at the online shop-fronts of several dealers reveals a ready supply of Volvos, Scanias and Optares all available to purchase today.

 

[RT4038]

Hopefully going forward they will be more stable and only try to expand services that they know will be viable, tenders and bsip funded work for example - that are almost guaranteed to make money.

Provided that the prices you are bidding are realistic - an accurate reflection of the costs, plus some, of course.

With respect, a hole is being dug here!

The Traffic Commissioner requires a minimum of 42 days notice to cancel, register or amend a service.



There are reasons why a registration can be made at short-notice which are detailed in full under the "Period of Notice" heading at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/a-guide...ating-local-bus-services-in-england-and-wales. The only one that may possibly come in to play due to the illness of the owner - though I would suggest that the Traffic Commissioner would expect an operator with 19 vehicles authorised would have processes in place so that more than 1 person in the organisation able to register/amend services:



Poor performance of commercial trips is NOT a valid reason for short-notice changes. Indeed, serveral operators have had their licences revoked in the past for not obeying the standard 42 day notice period. Suggest you read https://www.route-one.net/legal/north_warwickshire_travel_director_disqualified_indefinitely/ - whilst this is a more extreme example than Hulleys, the TC made it clear that staff shortages or vehicle shortages are not sufficient reason for short notice cancellations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2025 ==


So need some money to spend on them to sort them out. Again, other operators seem to manage this.

And if E200s are out of flavour a quick look at the online shop-fronts of several dealers reveals a ready supply of Volvos, Scanias and Optares all available to purchase today.

I don't think there is any suggestion that Hulley's have been introducing service changes without TC agreement as to the date?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2025 ==

So need some money to spend on them to sort them out. Again, other operators seem to manage this.

That presupposes some money being available to spend....

And if E200s are out of flavour a quick look at the online shop-fronts of several dealers reveals a ready supply of Volvos, Scanias and Optares all available to purchase today.

Which is what it looks like Hulley's are doing?

 

[AWK]

I don't think there is any suggestion that Hulley's have been introducing service changes without TC agreement as to the date?


That presupposes some money being available to spend....

The poster above said 30 days notice had been given. That would imply less than 42 days notice was given.

Hulleys own publicity on their social media channels was very last minute to say the least including errors in the published timetables which suggest a certain element of rush!

Hopefully with 2 vehicles returned off lease, and the need to justify financial standing at a forthcoming PI there is very much money in the bank!

 

[greenline712]

I don't have any knowledge of the recent background to Hulley's difficulties .... however, I would point out that the TC does have discretion to accept changes at under 42 days notice if circumstances are extreme.
In this case, I would not be surprised if Derby CC have asked for dispensation on the grounds that the alternative was Hulley's closing overnight.
Just think about the closures of GHA, Countryliner and the like .... better to try to protect 100 trips at the expense of 10 trips (I don't know the exact number, but you get the idea ...).
The needs of the many, and so on .... not ideal at all, but the alternative could see no service for a lot of passengers.

 

[markymark2000]

I don't think there is any suggestion that Hulley's have been introducing service changes without TC agreement as to the date?

The set of variations for the changes which happen next week, were done under short notice. Registrations were submitted on the 27th December ready to start on the 25th January. That is information from the Govt registration search

https://www.vehicle-operator-licens...registered-local-bus-services/details/630394/ (only showing the 6 but they are all the same)

Spoiler: Photo from Govt UK

(Not saying it's right or wrong, just giving the facts)

 

[RT4038]

I don't have any knowledge of the recent background to Hulley's difficulties .... however, I would point out that the TC does have discretion to accept changes at under 42 days notice if circumstances are extreme.
In this case, I would not be surprised if Derby CC have asked for dispensation on the grounds that the alternative was Hulley's closing overnight.
Just think about the closures of GHA, Countryliner and the like .... better to try to protect 100 trips at the expense of 10 trips (I don't know the exact number, but you get the idea ...).
The needs of the many, and so on .... not ideal at all, but the alternative could see no service for a lot of passengers.

Quite possibly!

 

[AWK]

The set of variations for the changes which happen next week, were done under short notice. Registrations were submitted on the 27th December ready to start on the 25th January. That is information from the Govt registration search

https://www.vehicle-operator-licens...registered-local-bus-services/details/630394/ (only showing the 6 but they are all the same)

Spoiler: Photo from Govt UK

View attachment 173127

(Not saying it's right or wrong, just giving the facts)

Oh dear oh dear... The TC has approved the registrations effective as of 27th Jan. The operator seems to have implemented those changes as of the 13th Jan...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2025 ==

I don't have any knowledge of the recent background to Hulley's difficulties .... however, I would point out that the TC does have discretion to accept changes at under 42 days notice if circumstances are extreme.
In this case, I would not be surprised if Derby CC have asked for dispensation on the grounds that the alternative was Hulley's closing overnight.
Just think about the closures of GHA, Countryliner and the like .... better to try to protect 100 trips at the expense of 10 trips (I don't know the exact number, but you get the idea ...).
The needs of the many, and so on .... not ideal at all, but the alternative could see no service for a lot of passengers.

As I've said before, poor commercial decision making is not a reason for acceptance of a short notice registration, whether endorsed by the local authority of not. The only reasons - per their own guidance - that the TC can accept a short-notice registration is:

The legislation sets out the circumstances which permit the traffic commissioner to waive the notice period and allow the service to start, be varied or cancelled at short notice, these are:

(a) registering or varying a service (or part of a service) which will be substantially similar to and will replace a service (or part of a service) which has ceased or is ceasing to operate. The name of the operator and registration reference of the existing service should be provided with the application

(b) varying or cancelling the registration of a standard service which is either not available to members of the general public or not regularly used by them

(c) varying or cancelling a service in response to representations from an authorised person (a traffic authority or a chief officer of police) on a matter concerning road traffic regulation or road safety. A copy of a letter from the traffic authority or police should be provided with the application

(d) registering the particulars of a new service or varying a registration to increase an existing service, in order to provide the new or augmented service for a period not exceeding 21 days, in connection with a specified event or occasion which will cause an additional demand for a service

(e) varying a registration by adjusting the timetable without significantly affecting the level of the service provided, and the adjusted timings are either:

i. no more than 10 minutes earlier or later than those in the registered timetable, or
ii. required to adapt the service to a variation in a connecting rail, ferry or air service – details of the connecting service should be provided
(f) varying the registration so as to vary or suspend the service for a period not exceeding 14 days in response to public holidays restricted to the relevant locality or holidays taken by a substantial proportion of the population in that locality

(g) where, due to circumstances which were not reasonably foreseen, you failed to make an application in sufficient time for the period of notice. You should provide full details on the application as to why it could not have been foreseen (h) register or vary a registration in order to meet an urgent and exceptional public passenger transport requirement

To accept an application at short notice a traffic commissioner must be satisfied that one of the criteria set out above is met. When applying for short notice the relevant reason must be identified with sufficient explanation to justify the application. Evidence may also be requested.

 

[Omnidekkalover]

Don’t think DCC would want Hulleys to shut up shop because it would be a pain to sort out the mess of 10 routes

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2025 ==

Although I think Hulleys are asking for trouble for that sort of behavior when they have an inquiry in under a week

I think if they were to die it would be a messy closure

 

[tram21]

Oh dear oh dear... The TC has approved the registrations effective as of 27th Jan. The operator implemented those changes as of the 13th Jan...

Not a good way to help themselves. Surely they could have just waited until 27th?

We'll see how tomorrow goes!

 

[AWK]

Don’t think DCC would want Hulleys to shut up shop because it would be a pain to sort out the mess of 10 routes

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2025 ==

Although I think Hulleys are asking for trouble for that sort of behavior when they have an inquiry in under a week

I think if they were to die it would be a messy closure

I think it would probably be considered at a different hearing, as the operator (and their legal team, if they are using one) will have already been given the specifics of the forthcoming PI and prepared their responses accordingly.

DCC along with other local councils will have measures in place to deal with the sudden collapse of any of their operators - messy yes, but emergency contracts can be issued incredibly quickly. I recall when Powells/HCT collapsed in South Yorkshire the PTE (or MCA if it had changed by then) had emergency tenders issued by email more or less straight away for a very quick response and some replacement services were contracted and up and running with a matter of days. Likewise, most of the "established" operators will have a rough idea of their neighbouring operators services and what they would do with them, especially if they previously unsuccessfully bid for some of the contracts. Indeed one of the "big" operators I've worked for in the past knew an independent on their patch was in trouble and had pro-actively costed up what they would bid for should that operators services need covering and and bus and driver duties worked out already.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2025 ==

Not a good way to help themselves. Surely they could have just waited until 27th?

We'll see how tomorrow goes!

If anyone is in the area and has never been to a PI before I'd encourage anyone to go. It's very interesting to see a different side of the industry in operation! You don't need to work in the industry or for one of the companies involved, it is a PUBLIC event. Anyone can sit in and watch the proceedings.

 

[Hyebone]

If anyone is in the area and has never been to a PI before I'd encourage anyone to go. It's very interesting to see a different side of the industry in operation! You don't need to work in the industry or for one of the companies involved, it is a PUBLIC event. Anyone can sit in and watch the proceedings

I can't for the life of me find the PI details. Do you (or anyone) have the link to hand?

 

[AWK]

I can't for the life of me find the PI details. Do you (or anyone) have the link to hand?

Public Inquiry (90305) to be held at The Public Inquiry Room (Warrington), WA3 2SH, Suite 4, Stone Cross Place, Stone Cross Lane North, Golborne, Warrington, on 21 January 2025 commencing at 10:30 Previous hearing on 17 September 2024 was adjourned.

PC0003407 SN HENRY HULLEY & SONS LTD Director(s): ALFRED VINCENT CROFTS DERWENT GARAGE, CALVER ROAD, BASLOW, BAKEWELL, DE45 1RP

S17 - Consideration of disciplinary action under Section 17 (The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67766e906a79200ddfa21b7e/np_3157_01_January_2025.pdf

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Slightly off topic, but wasn't Hulleys once called Silver Service for a bit, with a base in Darley Dale? If so when did the name change occur?

Two firms - JH Woolliscroft and Hulleys were brought together under the Silver Service name in the late 1970s. Not certain when they reverted to Hulleys and the Darley Dale (Woolliscroft) base closed but late 1980s.

There was an article by the former traffic manager JT Cash that summarised the era very well in Buses in the mid 1980s.

 

[Flange Squeal]

DCC must of been listening as the new timetables for Hulleys are uploaded... https://www.derbysbus.info/times/tt_121_200.htm

At least someone has. A week on and passengers who may plan their journey by looking at Hulleys’ website still don’t have any indication these changes have even happened.

 

[MotCO]

Two firms - JH Woolliscroft and Hulleys were brought together under the Silver Service name in the late 1970s. Not certain when they reverted to Hulleys and the Darley Dale (Woolliscroft) base closed but late 1980s.

There was an article by the former traffic manager JT Cash that summarised the era very well in Buses in the mid 1980s.

Extract from the Buses link referred to earlier for those who do not have an account and are unable to access it. The name reverted to Hulleys in 1988.

FLEET IN FOCUS

HULLEYS OF BASLOW ENGLAND & WALES MCV Evolution-bodied...

www.keybuses.com

Founded: 1914 when Henry Hulley, chauffeur at The Hydro hotel in Baslow, purchased a Ford Model T taxi. Bus operation started 1921 with another Model T on Bakewell- Chesterfield route via Baslow, today’s service 170.


Seven vehicles operating services throughout Peak District by 1934, plus summer excursions to such destinations as York, Skegness, Southport and Blackpool. Family founded today’s Henry Hulley & Sons Ltd company January 1938.


The death of Thomas Hulley in 1971 prompted the remaining directors, all nearing retirement age, to sell the business in 1978 to the Wooliscroft family, who owned Silver Service at Darley Dale. Hulleys name reinstated 1988 when Wooliscroft family sold Baslow operation to Silver Service transport manager Arthur Cotterill and Peter Eades, a Hulleys mechanic and driver. Wooliscroft business liquidated with a year.


With Cotterill’s retirement in 2001, ownership passed entirely to the Eades family, distantly related to the Hulleys. On Peter Eades’s death in 2012, his son Richard took charge.

 

[IamTrainsYT]

The poster above said 30 days notice had been given.

I didn’t say that at all, I said I have no idea for certain, however much more notice was given than you think.

I think it ended up being about 30 days but I couldn’t tell you for certain!

 

[AWK]

I didn’t say that at all, I said I have no idea for certain, however much more notice was given than you think.

I don’t have a single idea on running businesses so i’m only going off what i’ve been told but I was under the impression that go coach was alfs own purchase. I may be wrong and stand to be corrected but I 100% do know that other people at hulleys can and do manage the finances.


Replacements for the final 3 are yet to be sourced, hence why they haven’t left yet.


The service changes weren’t made to get rid of the mmcs, it was a decision made afterwards. The routes/trips that were withdrawn were all commercial services that were running at a loss and had been for some time. the decision was ultimately made to cut them mainly so it reduced the amount of drivers and buses required per day in order to increase reliability further but also to cut costs where money was being spent unnecessarily. (As you are probably aware theres nationwide issues with Bus Driver shortages & Bus parts shortages) so by having the same amount of buses but less required for service it allows more spare vehicles which could potentially have affected a service running in the past if enough buses were VOR. The size of the hulleys fleet has not changed. MMCs 1 & 30 left and solo 18 & Decker 22 arrived in their place.


It was short notice, but not as short notice as you think. unfortunately with it being done just before Christmas/new year period it was all processed by Derbyshire County Council very late. I think it ended up being about 30 days but I couldn’t tell you for certain!

I didn’t say that at all, I said I have no idea for certain, however much more notice was given than you think.

You suggested it was "about 30 days".

Traffic Commissioner records show they were received 27th Dec for implementation on 27th Jan (32 days, so short notice as not 42 days). However the changes appear to have been implemented 14 days sooner, on 13th Jan

 

[820KDV]

DCC along with other local councils will have measures in place to deal with the sudden collapse of any of their operators - messy yes, but emergency contracts can be issued incredibly quickly.

Indeed, I can recall when an operator told us he had financially collapsed at 16:10 one afternoon and we ran the important 16:30 college journey with another operator a mere 10 minutes late. The "rescuing" operator ran the full 2-bus timetable from the following day, until we could issue and award a proper emergency tender.

On another occasion the receivers told us around lunchtime that a company was to cease trading at the close of play that day. As we had an idea things might be collapsing we had specific plans in place, and managed to get replacement buses out on the road the following day, while many of the previous company's drivers were still heading to their main depot to hear the news.

Things can move very quickly when they need to.

 

[AWK]

Did anyone attend the Hulleys PI today? If so, I gather you did better than some people who you would have thought should have been there.

Adjourned for 8 weeks or so (can't remember the exact date). Hopefully the right people will be in the UK then.

 

[peterblue]

Did anyone attend the Hulleys PI today? If so, I gather you did better than some people who you would have thought should have been there.

Adjourned for 8 weeks or so (can't remember the exact date). Hopefully the right people will be in the UK then.

Interesting. Can you elaborate? Who was missing?

 

[Teapot42]

Did anyone attend the Hulleys PI today? If so, I gather you did better than some people who you would have thought should have been there.

Adjourned for 8 weeks or so (can't remember the exact date). Hopefully the right people will be in the UK then.

I'm confused - the delay has been known about for some time due to a pre-existing arrangement.

Is there a formal procedure where the PI has to happen regardless but is adjourned to the previously agreed date?

 

[Goldfish62]

Did anyone attend the Hulleys PI today? If so, I gather you did better than some people who you would have thought should have been there.

Adjourned for 8 weeks or so (can't remember the exact date). Hopefully the right people will be in the UK then.

Who didn't attend? PIs are in the public domain so you can say.

 

[Teapot42]

Who didn't attend? PIs are in the public domain so you can say.

It's a stretch to say didn't attend. Hulleys owner had a pre-existing arrangement which clashed with the PI date. It had already been agreed to defer the PI to a later date as a result - if this hadn't been agreed then I'm sure they'd have cancelled said arrangement and attended.

This is being made out to be a case of someone intentionally not turning up when in fact it was known about and arranged a while back.

 

[AWK]

I'm confused - the delay has been known about for some time due to a pre-existing arrangement.

Is there a formal procedure where the PI has to happen regardless but is adjourned to the previously agreed date?

It is a PUBLIC Inquiry, not a closed shop between the Operator and the TC to suit peoples personal plans. Once the date of the Inquiry has been published it will occur on that date, even if that is to formally note an adjournment.

This is now the 2nd time this particular PI has been adjourned.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2025 ==

It's a stretch to say didn't attend. Hulleys owner had a pre-existing arrangement which clashed with the PI date. It had already been agreed to defer the PI to a later date as a result - if this hadn't been agreed then I'm sure they'd have cancelled said arrangement and attended.

This is being made out to be a case of someone intentionally not turning up when in fact it was known about and arranged a while back.

My reporting is entirely factual. A PI was called, it had previously opened and immediately adjourned, with a new date set for yesterday. A key individual to the proceedings, who you have chosen to identify (I didn't out of respect for their privacy even though the details will be made public when the inquiry reconvenes and the TC publishes their summary) was not present as they are not in the country, so the PI was adjourned again.