The end of Sullivan Buses (in London)

[Tom B]

Presumably there will be other creditors expecting money from the company. Although I'm not sure how it was structured since I understood that drivers were deployed on a mixture of TfL and commercial work, depending on requirements.

The assets must mainly be fully deprecated by now, surely; the newest vehicles being 66/67 plate, with many around the 10-15 year mark. They rent their premises both at North Mymms and South Mimms.

 

[matt_world2004]

Presumably there will be other creditors expecting money from the company. Although I'm not sure how it was structured since I understood that drivers were deployed on a mixture of TfL and commercial work, depending on requirements.

The assets must mainly be fully deprecated by now, surely; the newest vehicles being 66/67 plate, with many around the 10-15 year mark. They rent their premises both at North Mymms and South Mimms.

Sullivans used to sell a lot of their old buses to the film and tv industry to destroyed. Their life expired buses could go there

 

[450.emu]

Spare a thought for those staff that have lost their jobs with just a few hours notice. They are now awaiting contact from the receiver about eligibility for state redundancy.

Some apparently found out by a text message. Losing one's job by text perhaps midway through the day would have upset a lot of drivers. Noticed the 217 and 299 going downhill for some time. I know the TfL spec roller blinds may have been an issue but lots of "mystery excursions" with just route number and white blanks in destination. One on the London Bus Forum even alleges recievership and other complications, it's all been rife with rumour.

Apparenly all of the fleet is bought, not leased, so some might be sold off now TfL work has ended, or newer buses replacing older kit in the Herts commercial work. Some of the buses are ex London B7TLs from 2001. Newest is 66 plate E200 and E400 MMC (8 years in September) and 67 plate Streetlites (7 years) though I imagine they could not give those away for love nor money. One of the Streetlites was even scrapped recently.

They could sell off their "SUL" private number plates which must have cost a fortune for so many to be bought... None of their buses were lent to other firms who had to step in, which would have helped with blinds fiasco... Well done to operators literally cobbling together replacement services, finding buses, drivers etc within a matter of hours

They make it complicated because they are the ones thee customers have the relationship with . In the same way that a mcdonalds franchise has every element controlled by mcdonalds corporate tfl recieve the revenue and the operator is contracted for a fee to provide the service.

When TfL specify red ulez conpliant buses displaying a roundel and with a working oyster readers and ibus system and sullivans runs a blue Thorpe park bus, that's non ulez compliant, without a working etm and ibus system. It's tfl who lose revenue from the route.

Recent contracts have specified led blinds

If a mcdonalds franchise displayed "burger king" on the outside did a mixture of KFC and mcodonalds food, mcdonalds corporate would probably strip the franchise.

Sullivans did it "Their Way" but TfL were not "Lovin' it" and found no book or toy with their Unhappy Meal

The non TfL buses were either at Thorpe Park or North Mymms. It always was curious to see their TfL buses devoid of any fleetnames / logo, but Sullivans too used a similar Johnston font to put their website above the blind box at the front. I hope they do OK with their Herts work now.

 

[Goldfish62]

Presumably there will be other creditors expecting money from the company. Although I'm not sure how it was structured since I understood that drivers were deployed on a mixture of TfL and commercial work, depending on requirements.

The drivers were employed either on TfL or non-TfL work and not mixed. It'll be the ones on TfL work that have lost their jobs, some only finding out from social media on Friday afternoon.

 

[matt_world2004]

Some apparently found out by a text message. Losing one's job by text perhaps midway through the day would have upset a lot of drivers. Noticed the 217 and 299 going downhill for some time. I know the TfL spec roller blinds may have been an issue but lots of "mystery excursions" with just route number and white blanks in destination. One on the London Bus Forum even alleges recievership and other complications, it's all been rife with rumour.

Apparenly all of the fleet is bought, not leased, so some might be sold off now TfL work has ended, or newer buses replacing older kit in the Herts commercial work. Some of the buses are ex London B7TLs from 2001. Newest is 66 plate E200 and E400 MMC (8 years in September) and 67 plate Streetlites (7 years) though I imagine they could not give those away for love nor money. One of the Streetlites was even scrapped recently.

They could sell off their "SUL" private number plates which must have cost a fortune for so many to be bought... None of their buses were lent to other firms who had to step in, which would have helped with blinds fiasco... Well done to operators literally cobbling together replacement services, finding buses, drivers etc within a matter of hours



Sullivans did it "Their Way" but TfL were not "Lovin' it" and found no book or toy with their Unhappy Meal

The non TfL buses were either at Thorpe Park or North Mymms. It always was curious to see their TfL buses devoid of any fleetnames / logo, but Sullivans too used a similar Johnston font to put their website above the blind box at the front. I hope they do OK with their Herts work now.

Sullivans ran their Thorpe park buses on the tfl rail replacement 720 the 720 required a working ticket machine and ibus system because it was for long term rail replacement work so was considered by tfl to be a normal bus route.

TfL lost money and the branding confused customers

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

Hopefully, but presumably they will have to wait for the receiver to contact them personally to confirm their eligibility for a state redundancy payment otherwise they could be deemed to have resigned.

The drivers will be free to seek other work as long as their start date is after the date of redundancy (presumably either Friday 2nd or Saturday 3rd). In my experience it can take weeks until the receiver gets in touch and many months for redundancy payments to actually come through, so it is not feasible to wait before looking for other employment.

 

[Goldfish62]

The drivers will be free to seek other work as long as their start date is after the date of redundancy (presumably either Friday 2nd or Saturday 3rd). In my experience it can take weeks until the receiver gets in touch and many months for redundancy payments to actually come through, so it is not feasible to wait before looking for other employment.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[greenline712]

Metroline are encouraging former Sullivan's drivers to visit Potters Bar garage to discuss future employment.

 

[Mawkie]

Sorry for the weird link, the file was too big to be accommodated on this forum. I think I've uploaded Dean Sullivan's statement on the move away from TfL work.

With their abysmal bottom of the league table performance , I wonder who will miss them.

VID-20240806-WA0000

MediaFire is a simple to use free service that lets you put all your photos, documents, music, and video in a single place so you can access them anywhere and share them everywhere.

www.mediafire.com

 

[StemzeySignals]

Mr Sullivan will be facing the Senior Traffic Commissioner at a public inquiry in Cambridge on the 10th Sept. No doubt it is as a result of Sullivan's cessation of TfL services with less than 12 hours notice!

Sullivans ran their Thorpe park buses on the tfl rail replacement 720 the 720 required a working ticket machine and ibus system because it was for long term rail replacement work so was considered by tfl to be a normal bus route.

TfL lost money and the branding confused customers

A bus without London Buses radio and ticketing equipment is better than no bus, as evident when Ensign was contracted to operate the 718 on the 5-8th August.

 

[matt_world2004]

Mr Sullivan will be facing the Senior Traffic Commissioner at a public inquiry in Cambridge on the 10th Sept. No doubt it is as a result of Sullivan's cessation of TfL services with less than 12 hours notice!


A bus without London Buses radio and ticketing equipment is better than no bus, as evident when Ensign was contracted to operate the 718 on the 5-8th August.

Yes but sullivans were contracted with months notice to provide a london bus with a working ticket machine , they bid for the contract on that basis this is different to a company saying they will run the service with only 12 hours notice , using whatever buses they can find.

Tfl Get no revenue from the 720 if it has no ticket machine

 

[StemzeySignals]

Yes but sullivans were contracted with months notice to provide a london bus with a working ticket machine , they bid for the contract on that basis this is different to a company saying they will run the service with only 12 hours notice , using whatever buses they can find.

Tfl Get no revenue from the 720 if it has no ticket machine

Ensign were contracted to operate the 718 weeks before Sullivans pulled out.

I do recall Metroline operating the 719 without fare provision.

 

[matt_world2004]

Ensign were contracted to operate the 718 weeks before Sullivans pulled out.

I do recall Metroline operating the 719 without fare provision.

I don't think they were , because there was no operation on the Saturday after sullivans pulled out

718: was novated to ensign buses on the 3rd August

720 was novated to London sovereign on the 3rd August

Both were scheduled to be run by sullivans

 

[StemzeySignals]

I don't think they were , because there was no operation on the Saturday after sullivans pulled out

718: was novated to ensign buses on the 3rd August

720 was novated to London sovereign on the 3rd August

Both were scheduled to be run by sullivans

This isn't true. Abellio/TUK normally operate the 718 but has been doing more GTR work as of recent, plus the amount of spares that would've been used on rail put on recent arrivals such as the 133/363.

Metroline operated the 718 on the 3/4th August, and drivers at Ensign had their duties assigned to them two weeks before the 5th Aug. Sullivans were only contracted to operate DCL-720.

 

[matt_world2004]

This isn't true. Abellio/TUK normally operate the 718 but has been doing more GTR work as of recent, plus the amount of spares that would've been used on rail put on recent arrivals such as the 133/363.

Metroline operated the 718 on the 3/4th August, and drivers at Ensign had their duties assigned to them two weeks before the 5th Aug. Sullivans were only contracted to operate DCL-720.

I believe, that abellios operations were moved to the 719, for some reason and that ensign took the 718 . Ensign hired in a lot of third party companies to provide the service in North West London which is very unusual for an operator who was given notice.

I was sent out to check the 718,720 at Harrow and wealdstone precisely because of the short notice nature of the contract changes and the controllers from Ensign confirmed they didn't have much notice.

 

[StemzeySignals]

I believe, that abellios operations were moved to the 719, for some reason and that ensign took the 718 . Ensign hired in a lot of third party companies to provide the service in North West London which is very unusual for an operator who was given notice.

I was sent out to check the 718,720 at Harrow and wealdstone precisely because of the short notice nature of the contract changes and the controllers from Ensign confirmed they didn't have much notice.

As far as I'm aware 719 has never been operated by Abellio. The 718 award to Metroline (3/4) and Ensign (5-8) was late notice, but not due to Sullivans pulling out. It's very normal for Ensign to subcontract duties and they have done for many years.

Sullivans have learned the consequences of taking on too much rail work!

 

[Goldfish62]

Mr Sullivan will be facing the Senior Traffic Commissioner at a public inquiry in Cambridge on the 10th Sept. No doubt it is as a result of Sullivan's cessation of TfL services with less than 12 hours notice!

The operator being called to the enquiry is Sullivan Buses Engineering, which is primarily the Hertfordshire stuff.

 

[StemzeySignals]

The operator being called to the enquiry is Sullivan Buses Engineering, which is primarily the Hertfordshire stuff.

Sullivan Bus & Coach Ltd’s operating centre closed and the company is in the process of being liquidated.

Bus as far as I’m aware this is in regards to TfL services as there was more than enough notice when he cut Herts (commercial) routes previously.

 

[Goldfish62]

Sullivan Bus & Coach Ltd’s operating centre closed and the company is in the process of being liquidated.

That's irrelevant as far as the TC is concerned. Liquidated companies are still called to public enquiries. Same with TMs. If someone resigns as a TM it doesn't excuse them from a public inquiry.

Incidentally, Sullivan Bus and Coach is still shown as holding an O licence, plus on Companies House Sullivan Bus & Coach is still an extant company with Dean Sullivan as sole director. Curious.

 

[StemzeySignals]

That's irrelevant as far as the TC is concerned. Liquidated companies are still called to public enquiries. Same with TMs. If someone resigns as a TM it doesn't excuse them from a public inquiry.

I’m aware of this! I explained in my second paragraph.

 

[Goldfish62]

I’m aware of this! I explained in my second paragraph.

I must be very slow today as I'm still not with you. TfL services were primarily operated by Sullivan Bus and Coach. It is Sullivan Buses Engineering which is being called to PI. The TC could still have called Sullivan Bus & Coach if he'd wished, but he hasn't. Yet.

 

[MotCO]

I must be very slow today as I'm still not with you. TfL services were primarily operated by Sullivan Bus and Coach. It is Sullivan Buses Engineering which is being called to PI. The TC could still have called Sullivan Bus & Coach if he'd wished, but he hasn't. Yet.

Yes, I was curious about this. The failing of Sullivan Bus and Coach seems an obvious case to be answered; what case does Sullivan Buses Engineering have to answer?

(Is there a TC for London; if not, maybe the only way to get Sullivan to attend a hearing could be through Sullivan Buses Enginnering.)

 

[Edvid]

There is a TC (currently Sarah Bell) for London and the South East.

 

[Goldfish62]

Yes, I was curious about this. The failing of Sullivan Bus and Coach seems an obvious case to be answered; what case does Sullivan Buses Engineering have to answer?

(Is there a TC for London; if not, maybe the only way to get Sullivan to attend a hearing could be through Sullivan Buses Enginnering.)

Yes, Sarah Bell is the Traffic Commissioner for London and the South East. Buses, coaches and lorries still need regulating in London and are subject to exactly the same rules as elsewhere.

 

[StemzeySignals]

I must be very slow today as I'm still not with you. TfL services were primarily operated by Sullivan Bus and Coach. It is Sullivan Buses Engineering which is being called to PI. The TC could still have called Sullivan Bus & Coach if he'd wished, but he hasn't. Yet.

The only thing we can do is wait and see!

(Is there a TC for London; if not, maybe the only way to get Sullivan to attend a hearing could be through Sullivan Buses Enginnering.)

Bus doesn’t Hertfordshire fall in the East of England Traffic Area? Considering their operating centres are located there they should be facing Richard Turfitt.

 

[Goldfish62]

The only thing we can do is wait and see!

Indeed. It's usually nigh-on impossible to tell what an operator has been called up for from the announcement.

Bus doesn’t Hertfordshire fall in the East of England Traffic Area? Considering their operating centres are located there they should be facing Richard Turfitt.

Yes, that's correct.

 

[M803UYA]

Indeed. It's usually nigh-on impossible to tell what an operator has been called up for from the announcement.


Yes, that's correct.

The company, according to DVSA Operator search only holds two O licences. Engineering (PF1144361) has 25 vehicles on it and has been called, whereas Bus & Coach (PF0002431) with 75 vehicles on it has not. Both licences are Eastern, not South Eastern & Metropolitan.

From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c5bae1cbe60889bddd2786/np_2650_21_August_2024.pdf

Public Inquiry (90231) to be held at The Court Room (Cambridge), CB2 8BF, Eastern Traffic Area, Eastbrook, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge, on 10 September 2024 commencing at 10:00 PF1144361 SN SULLIVAN BUSES ENGINEERING LTD Director(s): DEAN SULLIVAN 6 DEARDS HOUSE, ST ALBANS ROAD, SOUTH MIMMS, POTTERS BAR, EN6 3NE S26 - Consideration of disciplinary action under Section 26 (The Transport Act 1985) S17 - Consideration of disciplinary action under Section 17 (The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981) S28 - Consideration of disciplinary action under Section 28 (The Transport Act 1985)

It's fairly easy to follow what the call up is for once you know the legislation:

S16/S17 are simply the parts of the legislation permitting a traffic commissioner to call a public inquiry.

S26 is typically a failure to operate registered timetables. It often appears with S155 of the 2000 Transport Act (which permits the traffic commissioner to fine the operator for failure to run as registered). Not enough buses or drivers? Not an acceptable reason for not running the service. You should have sufficient levels of either. Otherwise, reduce your operation to a level you can operate. Traffic congestion?....

S28 is usually some sort of failure in the operators maintenance systems.

We can surmise what this could be from others called up. It can be as simple as collecting too many prohibition notices when stopped at the roadside. It can also indicate a high first time fail rate on MOT, a failure to inspect vehicles to agreed intervals. With coach operators it can also follow on from breaches of drivers hours legislation (tachograph offences on a wide scale would see you to inquiry)

This query has come up previously on another thread, but I'll repeat it for simplicity.

 

[Goldfish62]

The company, according to DVSA Operator search only holds two O licences. Engineering (PF1144361) has 25 vehicles on it and has been called, whereas Bus & Coach (PF0002431) with 75 vehicles on it has not. Both licences are Eastern, not South Eastern & Metropolitan.

From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c5bae1cbe60889bddd2786/np_2650_21_August_2024.pdf


It's fairly easy to follow what the call up is for once you know the legislation:

S16/S17 are simply the parts of the legislation permitting a traffic commissioner to call a public inquiry.

S26 is typically a failure to operate registered timetables. It often appears with S155 of the 2000 Transport Act (which permits the traffic commissioner to fine the operator for failure to run as registered). Not enough buses or drivers? Not an acceptable reason for not running the service. You should have sufficient levels of either. Otherwise, reduce your operation to a level you can operate. Traffic congestion?....

S28 is usually some sort of failure in the operators maintenance systems.

We can surmise what this could be from others called up. It can be as simple as collecting too many prohibition notices when stopped at the roadside. It can also indicate a high first time fail rate on MOT, a failure to inspect vehicles to agreed intervals. With coach operators it can also follow on from breaches of drivers hours legislation (tachograph offences on a wide scale would see you to inquiry)

This query has come up previously on another thread, but I'll repeat it for simplicity.

Yes, but as I've found from attending several public inquiries both as a witness and an observer you're never quite sure of the actual reasons until the day, and there's no point in asking the TC's office in advance.

In respect of failing to operate registered services, this of course will be for Herts (or Thorpe Park) routes as the TC has no jurisdiction over service quality in London.

 

[Tom B]

Yes, but as I've found from attending several public inquiries both as a witness and an observer you're never quite sure of the actual reasons until the day, and there's no point in asking the TC's office in advance.

In respect of failing to operate registered services, this of course will be for Herts (or Thorpe Park) routes as the TC has no jurisdiction over service quality in London.

Out of interest, is "the accused" informed of the reasons/accusations prior to the hearing?

 

[Goldfish62]

Out of interest, is "the accused" informed of the reasons/accusations prior to the hearing?

Oh yes, very much so. There will already have been meetings with the DVSA and the TC to try to rectify things without recourse to a PI. When these steps fail the TC calls a PI, giving sufficient time for the operator to appoint a lawyer and prepare a defence.