(15/08/2016 23:45)iMarkeh Wrote: [ -> ]Please say GHA directors havent actually set up again somewhere else? As if enough crap hadn't hit the fan, they want to set up again and ruin more employees lives. Disgrace!
On the day the drivers were called in to be told they were out of work alledgedly some were told then that the directors were in the process of setting up a new GHA and that it would only take a matter of months. Presumably some of the former drivers will be re-employed to work at this new sham.
(16/08/2016 10:11)Mayneway Wrote: [ -> ]On the day the drivers were called in to be told they were out of work alledgedly some were told then that the directors were in the process of setting up a new GHA and that it would only take a matter of months. Presumably some of the former drivers will be re-employed to work at this new sham.
Hopefully they concentrate on one or two specific towns rather than trying to cover a huge area.
Does anyone know why two different companies owned by the former GHA directors have won Wrexham contracts? Is it that both operators placed a bid for each contract so they could maximise their chances of winning or that they have limited licences?
Can anyone confirm that the Davies.s are involved and its not just that vosa haven't caught up with a sale of the companies?
(16/08/2016 12:17)mikestone Wrote: [ -> ]Can anyone confirm that the Davies.s are involved and its not just that vosa haven't caught up with a sale of the companies?
The site which was linked to:
https://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk shows Company House records for Limited Companies and seems to be up-to-date. For instance, it mentions G.H.A. Coaches Limited was put in to administration on 20th July 2016.
By looking on the vosa website the GHA ops licence is still valid and not surrendered yet.
It will take some time and doing to get back where they was as they only have 7 ops discs between both the companies name they are starting back up under.
(15/08/2016 20:37)Dentonian Wrote: [ -> ]But on what grounds legally (not morally) can they refuse to award the contracts to a company that has been granted a licence, and has no existing ban against them? Remember, Local Authorities are bound to award contracts to the cheapest bidder, unless that bidder is *legally* ineligible. The first loyalty of any Transport Authority is to the Tax-payer, not the bus passenger.
Absolutely, it's the inherent problem facing councils at the moment with budget cuts. The Council would not have had a choice and 'New GHA' have made sure to get these before (if) any inquires happen as these would have had to been declared and could have stopped them receiving the tenders. With them applying with those companies rather than 'GHA' things such as that H&S breach would not be taken into account, even if everyone (them and the Council) are aware of what has happened.
For the 30% 'Quality' to have obviously not had much input on the outcome it would be right to assume that 'New GHAs' bid was probably rather low.
The thing to note is that these are emergency tenders until 31st March 2017, by the time they are renewed things should have been sorted out a bit.
On a different note, it will be interesting to see what is going to happen with 'New GHA' in terms of vehicles, depots, name etc and it would have to happen rather quality as those tenders are to start ASAP based on a short notice approval from the TC.
Also: The 15-plate Solos have appeared on the Ensign website (YJ15 AYE pictured)
http://www.ensignbus.com/2015-optare-solo.html
(15/08/2016 23:45)iMarkeh Wrote: [ -> ]Please say GHA directors havent actually set up again somewhere else? As if enough crap hadn't hit the fan, they want to set up again and ruin more employees lives. Disgrace!
Technically they haven't 'set up' another company. The licenses were first registered in 2008 with several changes to the address. This is actually something that has laid dormant for some time.
(16/08/2016 20:17)Raawwwrrr! Wrote: [ -> ]Technically they haven't 'set up' another company. The licenses were first registered in 2008 with several changes to the address. This is actually something that has laid dormant for some time.
This is the part of the industry that needs tightening up. The fact some operators sit on unused dormant licences for years on the off chance that they get a knuckle wrapping from the TC and a licence reduction then just simply register some of thier services on a dormant licence. First Manchester famously did this many years ago. There VA was reduced and they simply registered one of there depots entire services on the licence of Pioneer travel which they had acquired some years previously and allowed to go dormant.
Historians among us will remember the fiasco 12/13 years who with UK North in Manchester. They had there licence reduced after issues with maintaince, then when things got heated with Stagecoach they applied to increase it and were flatly refused so simply registered a seperate company applied for a licence and it was granted - they doubled there disks over night and we all know how it ended.
But after the fiasco which saw the directors jailed the TC vowed to tighten things up and make it harder for those with a not so good reputation to have any connection to a licence yet clearly that's not happened.