Should Gov be sued over PRM failure?

[ashkeba]

I dont think they are rewarding anybody - quite simply if they didnt give a dispensation for the trains then there would be many many trains withdrawn and skeletal services all over the country.

Its damn right pathetic that it has come to this and i agree some form of punishment should be handed out for not getting it done on time but we are where we are - do you want a train to run or not?

I want trains that everyone can use, as promised. But as we now can't, I want them ASAP and I want to avoid similar fiascos in future. Why don't everyone?

Government could do more that just writing dispensations. Fine the companies for this flagrant failure to deliver basic universal human rights. Maybe sending a ROSCO under and seizing assets to pay the fine would concentrate some minds! Then the seized stock could quickly be lined up for improvements. But we all know the bankers' friends won't do that. And that's why they should be sued.

 

[Clip]

I want trains that everyone can use, as promised. But as we now can't, I want them ASAP and I want to avoid similar fiascos in future. Why don't everyone?

So do we all - i havent seen anyone say they shouldnt but you seem to think people are saying that.

Government could do more that just writing dispensations. Fine the companies for this flagrant failure to deliver basic universal human rights.

But without dispensations then there would be fewer trains

Maybe sending a ROSCO under and seizing assets to pay the fine would concentrate some minds!

Possibly would be you would have to have a water tight case for doing so

Then the seized stock could quickly be lined up for improvements.

Which they already are but they just havent been done quick enough with it to try and keep some sort of service together

But we all know the bankers' friends won't do that. And that's why they should be sued.

So sue them then. And come back and let us know how you got on

 

[matacaster]

No.

Only lawyers on this forum would support such an idea!

The costs of such action on both sides would be substantial and the public would have to pay through taxes. There is no 'Govt money'.

Whilst one has great sympathy for people with disabilities, or even decreptitude through old age, there needs to be an understanding that the vast majority should not be inconvenienced unnecessarily and any action needs to be proportionate.

Taking aim at rail which has been at the forefront of making disabled access possible at huge cost to taxpayer and passengers alike is rather unfair when there are likely tens of thousands of non-compliant buses about.

 

[Deepgreen]

The basic point is that the deadline was set so many years ago that it is unforgivable to have missed it. If there is no meaningful penalty that can be imposed without needing to withdraw non-compliant stock, then where is the industry headed?! It sends a signal to those involved that they can carry on focusing all their efforts on maximising shareholders' profits rather than providing the public service that a/the railway operator should be.

 

[ashkeba]

there needs to be an understanding that the vast majority should not be inconvenienced unnecessarily and any action needs to be proportionate.

Was not that argument used for only allowing the majority race to sit at the front of buses in some countries?

Taking aim at rail which has been at the forefront of making disabled access possible at huge cost to taxpayer and passengers alike is rather unfair when there are likely tens of thousands of non-compliant buses about.

Sue the bus owners too.

 

[hwl]

The basic point is that the deadline was set so many years ago that it is unforgivable to have missed it. If there is no meaningful penalty that can be imposed without needing to withdraw non-compliant stock, then where is the industry headed?! It sends a signal to those involved that they can carry on focusing all their efforts on maximising shareholders' profits rather than providing the public service that a/the railway operator should be.

And DfT / TS / TfW are all part of the issue of having missed it...

 

[Bikeman78]

I want trains that everyone can use, as promised. But as we now can't, I want them ASAP and I want to avoid similar fiascos in future. Why don't everyone?

I know some disabled people for whom the PRM mods will make no difference. They still won't travel alone. It is true that modified units will allow more people to travel but not everyone by any means.

 

[3270]

maximising shareholders' profits

If you were unfortunate enough to be a First Group shareholder for the past decade you won't have seen much in the way of profits. The last dividend (i.e share of the profits) they received was on 07/02/2013 and the share price has gone down 64% from £3.47 on 31/12/2009 to £1.25 today. They're positively coining it in (not)!

 

[35B]

I want trains that everyone can use, as promised. But as we now can't, I want them ASAP and I want to avoid similar fiascos in future. Why don't everyone?

Government could do more that just writing dispensations. Fine the companies for this flagrant failure to deliver basic universal human rights. Maybe sending a ROSCO under and seizing assets to pay the fine would concentrate some minds! Then the seized stock could quickly be lined up for improvements. But we all know the bankers' friends won't do that. And that's why they should be sued.

Then what do you propose to do where either:

1. The train operator has ordered stock to meet PRM requirements but the manufacturers have not delivered it in time to meet the deadline; or
2. The operator has tried to engage with the regulations and been instructed by the government to take no action because the new franchisee will deal with it?

 

[ashkeba]

Then what do you propose to do where either:

1. The train operator has ordered stock to meet PRM requirements but the manufacturers have not delivered it in time to meet the deadline; or
2. The operator has tried to engage with the regulations and been instructed by the government to take no action because the new franchisee will deal with it?

1. Fine the operator. Whether the late manufacturer reimburses them is a matter for their contract.

2. Fine the government. It should not be telling companies to ignore regulations.

 

[Llanigraham]

1. Fine the operator. Whether the late manufacturer reimburses them is a matter for their contract.

To which the response is likely to be, OK but we will stop running any trains not compliant AND we will have to put up fares to cover the cost of the fines. Is that what you want?

2. Fine the government. It should not be telling companies to ignore regulations.

Legally can the Governmemt be taken to Court?

 

[35B]

1. Fine the operator. Whether the late manufacturer reimburses them is a matter for their contract.

2. Fine the government. It should not be telling companies to ignore regulations.

On 2., the government are entitled under the law to grant those derogations. I’m not sure on what basis they could be fined for acting in accordance with the law.

 

[ashkeba]

On 2., the government are entitled under the law to grant those derogations. I’m not sure on what basis they could be fined for acting in accordance with the law.

Entitled under one law but discouraged from such unreasonable behaviour over equality by several others.

 

[PG]

Legally can the Governmemt be taken to Court?

Yes.

Try searching "take the government to court uk"

 

[Antman]

If you had ROSCOs and TOCs required to comply and price it in all their bids, then the procurements would fail.
The margins are already low and billions on new trains that need financing and paying for when there’s perfectly good ones which (and this bit will be unpopular) for 99% of passengers will not have been a priority. Ticket prices wound have rocketed to covet the risk pricing. Plus there’s (been) a lack of manufacturing capacity anyway.

my new local station has 2-3million quid of disabled access newly installed. It has at best an hourly service and has large two hour gaps in that at peak times. I have yet to see the ramps being used by anyone (pushchair or wheelchair or in fact anyone) who wasn’t riding their bicycle up it.... it has a car park with about 20 spaces (three disabled, never seen any used - others all full by 0800 so parking on the road/verges), no staff, no TVM payment facilities, no facilities at all. But that couple of million Plus got spent. I get how Laudable and desirable it all is, but it’d be a LOT cheaper (and quicker) to just lay on a minibus with access for disabled passengers as and when Than spend millions all along the route on infrastructure which is Not used. The cost of that disabled access at one station alone would have bought half a new unit... which benefits everyone for decades).

as I say, I know it’s unpopular but there has to be a balance somewhere. And at the moment it doesn’t feel it’s in the right place (but I am sure I will be told that’s demonstrating my prejudices and that’s why things don’t change...)

 

[Alfie1014]

You can guarantee that all franchise bids would have stated that compliance would have been achieved by the deadline, as not to do would have invalidated the bid as compliance was a pre-requisit, (possibly only EMR with the debacle over electrification and HST replacement being an exception). Most of the reasons for missing the deadline are due to delays to new rolling stock deliveries.

 

[Antman]

You can guarantee that all franchise bids would have stated that compliance would have been achieved by the deadline, as not to do would have invalidated the bid as compliance was a pre-requisit, (possibly only EMR with the debacle over electrification and HST replacement being an exception). Most of the reasons for missing the deadline are due to delays to new rolling stock deliveries.

absolutely. So NO bidder would have invalidated their bid for this reason. Even if they didn't believe it. It's a pass/fail. And a non-compliant bid means out. So say "yes" and deal with the problem if/when it happens.... which is what they've done.....

 

[Deepgreen]

If the TOCs have failed to deliver their contractual obligations, then take whatever action is the normal penalty for their failure...oh, hang on a minute...
If HMG have knowingly ignored warnings about the TOCs' likely failures, it would not surprise me at all, and who knows what action would be appropriate? The people have voted for the continuation of the status quo on the railways because they were more concerned with an unknowable trade deal than domestic crises.

 

[3141]

If the TOCs have failed to deliver their contractual obligations, then take whatever action is the normal penalty for their failure...oh, hang on a minute...
If HMG have knowingly ignored warnings about the TOCs' likely failures, it would not surprise me at all, and who knows what action would be appropriate? The people have voted for the continuation of the status quo on the railways because they were more concerned with an unknowable trade deal than domestic crises.

Establishing that the government "knowingly ignored" warnings might be difficult. Especially since (as pointed out previously) the legislation makes provision for there to be derogations.

I wonder how many people would have decided which party to vote for on the basis of their policies towards railways, even if Brexit had not been the dominating issue on 12th December. There are always many issues which may influence voting decisions, and only a minority of people use trains anyway.