Hulley's of Baslow

[Teapot42]

It is a PUBLIC Inquiry, not a closed shop between the Operator and the TC to suit peoples holiday 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.

As I inferred, I'm sure the TC was happy to agree to the date being deferred. Indeed the fact they were happy to accommodate a holiday, the date of which was already set when the PI date was announced, suggests they do not consider there to be any serious issues which need addressing promptly.

Presumably the previous adjournment was related to the health issues which required a stay in hospital? Or do you expect them to discharge themselves and make their way across the country attached to whatever medical equipment was keeping them going?

 

[AWK]

As I inferred, I'm sure the TC was happy to agree to the date being deferred. Indeed the fact they were happy to accommodate a holiday, the date of which was already set when the PI date was announced, suggests they do not consider there to be any serious issues which need addressing promptly.

It suggests nothing of the sort.

The TC will always want to question the key individual(s) from the company and will agree to adjournments where appropriate to allow that to happen.

They (the TC) will have made no prior assessment of the evidence nor reached any initial conclusion as to the severity (or othewise) of the circumstances that led to the PI being called. That is the whole point of the PI, to hear representations from the Operator, independent inspectors who may have monitored service performance, conducted vehicle checks, potentially representations from groups representing service users and/or the local authority who contract the service. The TC will hear this evidence, weigh it up, then decide what (if any) enforcement action is required.

To suggest the adjournment is a sign that matters to be investigated are not serious is very, very wide of the mark and implies the TC has already reached a judgement, which is totally against the standards under which the TCs operate.

 

[Teapot42]

My reporting is entirely factual. A PI was called, it had previously opened and immediately adjourned, with a new date set for yesterday.

Facts can be presented in a way that gives a particular opinion. Referring to 'people who you would have thought should have been there' and hoping they are in the UK next time gives the impression they left the country specifically to avoid attending.

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

It suggests nothing of the sort.

The TC will always want to question the key individual(s) from the company and will agree to adjournments where appropriate to allow that to happen.

There will have been discussions when then new date clashed. I can't see the TC leaving Hulleys in any doubt if a further adjournment would be looked on unfavourably.

Of course I don't know, there might have been hints that cancelling plans and turning up would be best, that were ignored. We'll find out in March. What I hear suggests otherwise however.

 

[AWK]

Facts can be presented in a way that gives a particular opinion. Referring to 'people who you would have thought should have been there' and hoping they are in the UK next time gives the impression they left the country specifically to avoid attending.

I very much hope they are able to attend the next scheduled hearing as I, as a member of the public, am keen for this PI to go ahead and to understand the detailed facts (not hear say) as to why the Inquiry was called, hear the testimonials from those invited to speak at the PI and to hear/read the TCs verdict.

I never said, nor I believe implied the fact the individual concerned was overseas was a deliberate attempt to avoid attending.

 

[Goldfish62]

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.

Thanks for the clarification - and yes, that's exactly how I read it.

All is now clear!

 

[Teapot42]

I very much hope they are able to attend the next scheduled hearing as I, as a member of the public, am keen for this PI to go ahead and to understand the detailed facts (not hear say) as to why the Inquiry was called, hear the testimonials from those invited to speak at the PI and to hear/read the TCs verdict.

I never said, nor I believe implied the fact the individual concerned was overseas was a deliberate attempt to avoid attending.

I mean, it sounds like you were disappointed not to be able to witness the company get put out of business, with the consequent job losses and disruption.

I would also like to attend a hearing to see what happens, but as this is quite a long way from Hulleys operating area it's not practical to make such a long journey just for that reason.

 

[AWK]

I mean, it sounds like you were disappointed not to be able to witness the company get put out of business, with the consequent job losses and disruption.

I would also like to attend a hearing to see what happens, but as this is quite a long way from Hulleys operating area it's not practical to make such a long journey just for that reason.

You are totally misrepresenting me. As someone who has previously been made redundant due to a business I worked for failing, the prospect of anyone being made redundant is awful.

However, should the PI find the Operator is failing in their obligations as a PSV licence holder and the TC deem that the appropriate punishment is revocation of licence (which only happens in rare and extreme cases) then I respect the outcome of that process.

Due geographical historical factors, Derbyshire comes under the North West Traffic Area, thus hearings are held in Warrington. If you want to go to any hearing - PSV or HGV - the North East TC area hearings are in Leeds. Strongly encourage anyone to attend a hearing, or at least read the TCs report to get a sense of how these matters are handled. This report is a recent one concerning an Operator who runs in to Chesterfield for example - https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ecision-for-lincolnshire-road-car-company-ltd

 

[Omnidekkalover]

So Stagecoach

 

[AWK]

So Stagecoach

Well, one part of it yes

 

[Teapot42]

So Stagecoach

Yes, I was just reading about that recently. Poor driver supervision - something my wife witnessed this morning. Driver had no idea how to work the ticket machine, failed to stop twice for passengers and went the wrong way once. They were unsupervised and obviously very new - doesn't seem best practice to me.

 

[embers25]

You are totally misrepresenting me..

Based on all your comments and their tone, I'd say Teapot42 was spot on. You clearly have an axe to grind against Hulleys. So why not be honest and say why.

 

[WibbleWobble]

Due geographical historical factors, Derbyshire comes under the North West Traffic Area, thus hearings are held in Warrington.

"Warrington" being a different "historical factor" (i.e. Royal Mail being awkward). If you said to someone in Golborne that they are in Warrington, you'd be hounded out of town!

 

[AWK]

Based on all your comments and their tone, I'd say Teapot42 was spot on. You clearly have an axe to grind against Hulleys. So why not be honest and say why.

No axe to grind against Hulleys. I rarely use their services, have never worked for them and don't know any of their staff bar one driver, so why should I have any issue with them?

That said however, I don't support others views that because they are a small operator with a long, and largely strong history, they should not be held to the same standards that other operators are held to. Whether you're a 1 vehicle opeatator or one of the "big boys" the same rules apply and should be applied equally.

 

[zkyx02]

YX74 ODY now has a new home in the form of Metrobus, I wonder if the other 3 will follow suit.

 

[Teapot42]

YX74 ODY now has a new home in the form of Metrobus, I wonder if the other 3 will follow suit.

A post on Facebook suggest the other three are going to Go Coach. Two are already there, one to follow once a replacement is in service.

Maybe it was easier to transfer the leases over than pay whatever penalty for getting out of the contract early?

 

[AWK]

A post on Facebook suggest the other three are going to Go Coach. Two are already there, one to follow once a replacement is in service.

Maybe it was easier to transfer the leases over than pay whatever penalty for getting out of the contract early?

Unlikely to be any penalty clauses

 

[Goldfish62]

A post on Facebook suggest the other three are going to Go Coach. Two are already there, one to follow once a replacement is in service.

So these buses that we were told on this thread were going because they're faulty, so awful to drive and passengers hate them are being acquired by other operators, including the very one who provided engineering support to Hulley's.

I always these supposed reasons for their disposal was nonsense.

 

[Hyebone]

I always these supposed reasons for their disposal was nonsense.

There's too many things floating around at the moment. It's probably worth just waiting to see what actually happens.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

So these buses that we were told on this thread were going because they're faulty, so awful to drive and passengers hate them are being acquired by other operators, including the very one who provided engineering support to Hulley's.

I always these supposed reasons for their disposal was nonsense

The reasons for disposal might be true, but you can't expect brand new buses to be sent for scrap however bad they are.
They haven't suited Hulley's but they might well do better in the different territory of Go Coach.

 

[tram21]

They haven't suited Hulley's but they might well do better in the different territory of Go Coach.

This is very true and most likely the reason. They were faulty at Hulleys because they couldn't cope with the hills and peak district roads, but Go Coach operates a slightly slower paced operation!

 

[Teapot42]

This is very true and most likely the reason. They were faulty at Hulleys because they couldn't cope with the hills and peak district roads, but Go Coach operates a slightly slower paced operation!

I wonder if the build quality was different, as they had No 1 for about a year so would have had some idea how suitable they were. That said, I'd heard cost was also one issue, maybe all the factors combined made it a poor choice and best reversed.

 

[Omnidekkalover]

Wonder if more evoras end up at hulleys

 

[Trainman40083]

Wonder if more evoras end up at hulleys

Not sure they need them.. More like a small handful of good quality secondhand buses.

 

[Teapot42]

Not sure they need them.. More like a small handful of good quality secondhand buses.

I think it's going to come down to financing. A new bus on a lease might be cheaper than a 2nd hand one you need to buy outright. Not sure how much of the fleet meets the requirements for the Sheffield CAZ so that might also be a factor.

From what I understand the short term aim is second hand buses to replace the MMCs, but longer term who knows. The Evora fits the bill well for the Peak District routes but it's been said in the past they are so popular there is a long lead time.

 

[Goldfish62]

The reasons for disposal might be true, but you can't expect brand new buses to be sent for scrap however bad they are.
They haven't suited Hulley's but they might well do better in the different territory of Go Coach.

Seems to me the most likely reason is that GoCoach was financing them and now the companies have split the inevitable has happened.

Hulley's operating territory isn't exactly harsh compared with a lot of areas where E200s have successfully run over the decades.

 

[Teapot42]

Seems to me the most likely reason is that GoCoach was financing them and now the companies have split the inevitable has happened.

Interesting assumption. As both companies had the same owner when they were initially leased the money would be coming from the same ultimate source.

Hulley's operating territory isn't exactly harsh compared with a lot of areas where E200s have successfully run over the decades.

They have plenty of classic E200s which seem to work fairly well. There is a lot of faster running and plenty of hills, plus our roads are frankly terrible. Maybe the build quality just isn't up to handling them?

 

[Omnidekkalover]

At least they’re not streetlites

 

[Trainman40083]

At least they’re not streetlites

That is a reason to be cheerful.

 

[Goldfish62]

Interesting assumption. As both companies had the same owner when they were initially leased the money would be coming from the same ultimate source.

That's really not how it works!

 

[zkyx02]

At least they’re not streetlites

Tbh the streetlite hulleys had was really good, most if not all drivers were a fan of it… shame they had to sell