Saturday 7th March 2026
You’d think a local authority receiving welcome news from a reputable bus company, with a track record of delivering quality bus services, it intended to run a tendered bus route on a commercial basis would bite their hand off and be hugely grateful for a consequential potential saving to the public purse of approaching £1 million over the next four years.
Not Essex County Council.
They responded with a metaphorical two fingers.
This bizarre situation took an even more unbelievable turn on the road yesterday when Council representatives were out in force literally standing by a bus stop encouraging passengers to use its taxpayer funded subsidised bus rather than the commercially provided bus, despite both providing an identical 15 minute frequency service with the same times and same fares.
It beats any of the immediate post deregulation antics between privately owned bus companies in late 1980s’ renowned competitive hotspots such as Glasgow, Manchester, Sheffield and Darlington. But this isn’t privately owed businesses risking shareholders funds; this is a publicly funded local authority squandering taxpayers money.
This saga is playing out in Chelmsford and began towards the end of last year when the County Council invited tenders to operate the town’s two Park & Ride services.
Whereas the relatively new-on-the-scene-in-those-days, Vectare bus company (as it was then called), won the four year contract when tenders were last invited in 2022, this time round, the previous operator, First Bus, succeeded, with winning bids for each of the two routes.
However, Transport Made Simple owned Central Connect, as Vectare renamed itself last year, having delivered a top quality service during its four year tenure, including investment in a fleet of impressive new ADL Enviro200 buses bought especially for the service, and seeing ridership increase post Covid believed it could deliver one of the two contracts – route 701 between the large Sandon Park & Ride site and the town centre – as a commercial proposition with no public funding.
Crucially, the company formally advised the County Council of this intention before the new contract had been awarded to First Bus.
Despite knowing this, the County Council chose to ignore that commercial intention and awarded a four year contract to First Bus as well as another separate contract for the other Park & Ride site at Chelmer Valley, with both arrangements commencing yesterday. (Yes, I know, Friday is an unusual day for a new bus service contract to commence, but this is Essex.)
Central Connect are understandably highly miffed it’s now facing competition from a publicly funded local authority for something it’s doing on a commercial basis and has taken legal advice, as has the County Council.
The County Council believes it’s acting in the public interest by providing an ‘integrated proposition’ of a car park and a contracted bus service for motorists/passengers to use and doesn’t want the two to become separated. It’s displaying new notices at the entrance to the car park setting out the new arrangements to “buy your ticket” from First Bus.
Central Connect has applied for a Judicial Review into the County Council’s actions claiming it’s misusing public funds.
I popped over to Chelmsford’s Sandon Park & Ride site yesterday morning and frankly in all the years of witnessing competitive battles between bus companies, I’ve never seen anything quite like this, not least a local authority acting in this way.
Not only had it deployed security staff and no end of managers and staff involved in Park & Ride as well as revenue protection officers from First Bus, but I understand a member of the County Council’s legal team was on site as staff shepherded passengers on to First’s buses and away from Central Connect’s vehicles.
Normally buses pull up in, wait, and depart from, a lay-by on the A1022 Maldon Road immediately outside the Park & Ride site’s terminal building…
… where there are facilities (including toilets) for passengers to keep warm and dry.
Yesterday, County Council staff had deactivated the sensor to the automatic doors from there out to the lay-by…
… so those waiting in the building couldn’t easily access Central Connect’s bus waiting immediately outside and instead had directed First Bus drivers to bring buses inside the car park itself…
… and then take a fairly lengthy tour…
… of part of the car park…
… which took a while to complete…
… before pulling up on the car park side of the terminal building…
… when, on the bus’s arrival, everyone waiting inside were escorted on a route march to the bus…
… through an army of high-viz wearing operational staff, managers and legal staff.
Meanwhile the commercially operated Central Connect bus was waiting outside in the lay-by, partly blocked by an out-of-service First bus waiting for a replacement ticket machine, with very few passengers making it through what effectively was a cordon.
What an absolute farce.
But it’s more than that, this is an outrageous misappropriation of public funds. Why are my taxes paying for a bus route exactly replicated by the same route that’s being provided on a commercial basis to exactly the same departure times, at exactly the same 15 minute frequency on exactly the same routing at the same fares?
And then you see the unbelievable lengths the County Council is going to with notices plastered on the non automatically opening doors advising motorists they’ll face a penalty charge of £3.60 if they dare to use Central Connect’s buses.
That arrangement wasn’t operating yesterday, but the intention is to have the exit barrier from the car park linked to a QR code on the bus ticket which, if it’s been issued on the contracted First Bus bus, will open the barrier but won’t recognise a Central Connect issued QR code and in that case the motorist will need to use a pay machine in the car park to hand over the £3.60 to work the barrier and exit the car park.
So not only are the County Council using public funds to provide a competitive service, they’re also using their infrastructure to penalise anyone daring not to use its service.
Not surprisingly, yesterday being the first day of these bizarre arrangements, motorists were completely perplexed at the new system for boarding buses. Some were trying to pass through the closed doors and couldn’t understand why they were being encouraged not to use the bus they’ve been travelling on for the past four years.
The County Council’s legal representative was handing out leaflets to motorists which explain the new arrangements…
… and interestingly makes reference to motorists returning from the town centre in the evening (ie after the Park & Ride timetable ends at 19:30) being able to “travel back on services 31 and 336 up till 23.10pm” [sic] which rather nullifies the Council’s desire for an ‘integrated proposition’ of car park and service. I don’t think a Judge will be convinced not least if they know their 24 hour clock presentation protocols!
For those who defied the security and reached the lay-by there was a helpful leaflet available from Central Connect staff promoting the service complete with a timetable and map …
… with supplies arriving during my visit and being added to buses on the route.
Notwithstanding the foregoing hurdles being thrown at Central Connect, when I first arrived at the car park I was impressed to see a very busy Central Connect bus in the lay-by about to depart…
… but it turned out First had suffered a breakdown with a gap in service so the Council’s team must have relented and made it easier for people to board Central Connect’s bus waiting outside.
I’m told by Central Connect staff, who were also out in force yesterday morning, including managing director Peter Nathanail, that First experienced two more buses breaking down during the morning resulting in more busy Central Connect buses and making for an ominous start to the new contract. First’s buses being used are former ADL Envro400s bought back in 2018 to revitalise Cornwall’s bus network and we know how that ended. They’ve now been repainted in the black livery specified by Essex County Council for its Park & Ride routes.
As well as an explanatory statement posted on board its buses…
… Central Connect is also displaying a poster outside the terminal building…
… and has included a lengthy explanation with the full background to the situation on its website.
Central Connect proclaiming “we’re here to stay” is highly commendable, but that statement was issued prior to yesterday’s shenanigans when the County Council effectively as good as blocked passengers from using its buses. Yes, I know the notice says “you are free to use the central connect service 701” but, with the door to the bus stop effectively out of action – you have to manually force it open with two hands unless the Council staff member pushes a button – intending passengers are not really being given a free choice. And, the £3.60 extra charge is an outrageous tactic for a local authority to use against a bus company doing its best to provide a quality service for passengers.
And, that’s what really hits below the belt with this outrageous action by Essex County Council. Were this a bus company with a questionable reputation and a history of issues with the Traffic Commissioner advising they intended to turn a tendered route into a commercial proposition, then I could perhaps understand the Council’s reticence, but here we have an operator which has proved its quality credentials over the last four years running the service as well as, in its relatively short history during the 2010s, has time and again shown it can deliver top quality services and bring about impressive investment in new buses. It’s actively turning basket case bus routes in challenging rural, semi-rural and small urban areas (including in many parts of Essex) into success stories at this very moment.
You’d think Essex County Council would welcome them with open arms. Yes, I know it would have been better had Central Connect advised the Council before it sought tenders that it would run the 701 commercially, but the fact it did so before the contract was awarded to First Bus, indicates the Councils line of thinking and it would probably therefore have still gone ahead and invited tenders.
It’s pertinent to ask what is Essex County Council’s end game here? Are they intending to continue deploying additional high-viz wearing staff, at even more cost to the taxpayer, to cajole passengers away from Central Connect’s buses in the hope the Company will give up? Yesterday’s scenes are simply unsustainable for both parties.
The Council’s actions were quite extraordinary to witness. And, as may come out in the coming weeks, of questionable legality. However, with very few passengers able to easily access Central Connect’s buses it’s obviously not going to make for a commercial proposition in the short term.
Whether it can continue in the medium term will depend on the timing and outcome of the upcoming Judicial Review into the Council’s actions.
Roger French
My thanks to blog readers Peter, Richard, Matthew and Dan for the heads up about this situation.
Blogging timetable: 06:00 TThS
BusAndTrainUser 
I’m confused. If Central Connect could make a profit , how could it possibly lose the contract?
LikeLike
If they think they could run it commercially, why bother tendering for the new contract.
LikeLike
Are you serious? They should have submitted a bid reflecting the commercial nature, but instead messed up and didn’t bid. Now they’re trying to cover for their own incompetence.
LikeLike
There is no requirement to put a zero-cost bid into the county council. All that is required is the service gets registered commercially in the usual way. However, given CC were the incumbent operator they would not even have to do this and just advise Essex they didn’t require further subsidy before commencement of the ‘contract’.
Dan Tancock
LikeLike
so did CC comply with the deregister of the other service? Would not services under contract to council running only point to point be registered by the council and not the operator?
JBC Prestatyn
LikeLike
Good Grief , absolutely astounding the resources being used here .
One question I would ask is what was the response from the council when Central advised they would run the service commercially and when was it received, as well as the timeline for the award against these conversations That I suspect will be the focus legally.
LikeLike
Hi Roger Good Grief , absolutely astounding the resources being used here . One questi
LikeLike
Whilst I accept that this is a very bizarre situation two further points
I understand that Central Connect forgot to tender for the service
If the service is commercial, as suggested by Central Connects actions, then the various figures of costs to the County Council are spurious as the tender cost will be covered by the revenue, and because Central Connect are making such a fuss a wonder if revenue exceeds costs by a reasonable margin, and the County Council were hoping to use this surplus to offset the costs of the other Park and Ride route? Which would go part way to explaining their action.
I had originally assumed that the buses picked up in the car park which would be private property, however this article clearly shows that that is not the case here. Several years ago there was a bid to make the Chester Park and Ride a commercial operation but because pickups were on private property that was not possible.
Here however it appears that the buses pickup stop is on the public road and if that’s the case then I think any operator is free to run a commercial bus service from that stop.
What is somewhat baffling is that Central Connect would have been aware when the contract ended, been aware of revenue and so should have advised the County long before a tender was issued that they would continue as a commercial operation.
Interestingly when the tender was let 4 years ago new buses were specified, whereas now for the continuation there is no such stipulation, First therefore using hand me downs from Cornwall and providing the usual poor standard of reliability typical of First.
I wonder what the penalty regime in place for the tender is?
LikeLike
Essex have been forced to hold Elections by the laws/judges of the land, in the wings, telling Comrade Starmer that he can’t stop democracy! ?
Does this have anything to do with their actions just now. ??
Do they want to make the funds for the incoming change of ruling Council Party in the wings so dire, that they will then claim that they can’t rule properly and hope to get back in 4 years hence ?? …?? Indeed one wonders what on earth is their motive here. And someone should launch a case for public disclosure of just how much funds they are spending on all this ?
To be fair Roger, it seems to be a most peculiar matter, but is there another side to the story at all. And eg that the Council truly had commited to a contract with First Buses or in ways you and we can’t appreciate, which tied them in and taxpayers’ money so ?
Or …??
Or are we simply back to Mrs Thatcher private Vs publically ruled (I am 64 in June and witnessed all the growth in small businesses and all sorts her tenure ushered in and I voted for her then.)
Or ?? the simple matter (or not ?) of privately run services Vs those under more strict duties to the public.
Which I was talking with my brother about last week as to if that Water Companies had at outset only been offered their running, public water services, under a level of their own investment etc into it, or that is, under levels of doing it as told by the Government, that it would have meant that we would not have ended up where we are . -?? ..
In other words the Council maybe have reasons to believe that First are better placed that they had already seen this and that Central Connect are going to now threaten the service AND those parts of that timetable that First have the greater financial leeway to maintain of the going gets tough , eg…
I am waffling on rather but it’s all too easy for us humans to condemn ‘ the other side ‘ , without knowing it all.
My home town/ city was for many years, Bristol & I have some appreciation of First there giving and under your friend James Freeman, whom I heard speak in a most impressive & caring way to us in a local community group, for a consultation on the problematic number 2 route, -unsolvable, it seemed, pinch points – what I deemed a service to be much appreciated, as I did, and many kind and good drivers all round.
So let’s try to see this fully objectively, and not let the maybe understandable beliefs we widely might have take us over before we see all of the matter. ??
Wider re competition ?:
Is not the concern with competition on routes widely that it is : A) not popular with we traveling wide public. ? I am just suggesting and don’t know. B) it threatens the ongoing service and especially the times of the day when less used . ?
And so any Council can have correct fears of their duties regards competition in bus services. Yes?
And more so park and ride which the Council has wider financial inputs into ?
Anyway .. .
David … thanks ! for all the blogging. !!
LikeLike
I think this beats Oxfordshire in building a park and ride site and not opening it in terms of waste of taxpayers money, absolutely scandalous I wonder if any of the conservative councillors are first bus shareholders?
LikeLike
One further point of note Roger, ECC outlined in their delegated decision that they have no budget for the subsidised service and the funds where being diverted from BSIP pots instead which effectively means the rest of the county is being deprived development for ECCs feud here.
LikeLike
If the Park & Ride site is a council asset, and the maintenance and running costs of that asset are being paid for by taxpayers, isn’t it reasonable to expect to recoup some of that cost from users of the service? The revenue taken on the bus goes towards the cost of running the bus service AND the cost of running the facilities. If a commercial operator comes along and keeps all the revenue for themselves, the taxpayer then needs to cover the full costs of running the P&R site (plus other costs such as dedicated town shelters, promotion, management, etc.). If the P&R service is profitable, which it must be if Central Connect want to take it on, then it’s only profitable because facilities are available (nobody would use the bus if there was no car park). How is it good for the taxpayer if they have to pay for the provision of a parking facility, and then they can’t recoup any of the costs?
If the council does cancel the contract with the new operator, they will have to simply charge passengers for parking instead (it will just becone a council car park, rather than a P&R facility). This will make the service less profitable for the commercial operator, because they will have to lower their prices, which might eventually result in them losing interest in the whole idea.
I think Roger may have had the wool pulled over his eyes with this one. Perhaps it’s not the case that Central Connect want to help the Essex taxpayer, maybe they just want to help themselves to revenue from a taxpayer funded facility?
LikeLike
So, irrespective of where the bus is stopping, if there are additional facilities being used by passengers (eg. Waiting room, car park), then Essex could just levy a departure charge to pay for this? Happens at bus stations up and down the land.
Dan Tancock
LikeLike
i understand the bus is stopping on a public road so there’s no way the Council could levy a charge.
CMB
LikeLike
Why not? The facilities are more than just where the bus stops.
LikeLike
Surely Essex can’t levy a departure charge for stopping on a public road?
CMB
LikeLike
That’s how I see it too. Central Connect want all the revenue but only the cost of the bus service, not that of the car park, waiting facilities etc.
Can anyone find an example of a commercially run everyday Park & Ride, as opposed to one for special events?
CMB
LikeLike
Exactly to this point here. I don’t want to get into talking about some personally and everyone is entitled to their opinions but I have found recently that Roger’s blog represent his own personal bias of private good vs any public is bad. This article has no objectivity into both sides of the argument (which I agree is a farce) but a diatribe against the Council. It would be at home in the Daily Mail or from the Tax Payer’s alliance!
I tried to find the reasons for Council decision making on internet but I agree to the points raise by others. Roger takes a very narrow minded view on solely one park and ride service not how the lowest cost can be archived for the all of the Park & Ride e.g. combining the profitable service with the loss marking one and the cost of the infrastructure. As a tax payer this would concern me more as seems as they the commercial service provider is cherry picking.
This brings to mind a thought, about a lack of bus infrastructure in the UK, what other country would built busways etc at great expense to the taxpayer and then let private firms run them and take all the profits. If public purse got a return on investment it would make more of these sorts of schemes affordable.
LikeLike
Don’t council’s have funding settlements inc rung fenced parking fines to spend on public transport generally. Were the park and rides built by s102 funding or central govt grant. That if you called it a bus interchange the departure fee could be charged. But who is responsible for bus stopping places on roads, it was the police at one time
JBC Prestatyn
LikeLike
So Essex, the most aggressively capitalist, libertarian, small-government county, is actively penalising a private company making a profit and enforcing state-funded control? You couldn’t make it up!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. We should cut Essex off and let it drift out into the North Sea. There would not be one single downside to losing it and receive who lives there.
LikeLike
Dear Roger,
You would have thought they got the dates wrong….it should be next week, the 13th, not yesterday, the 6th!!!! Privatisation gone mad…when one, uniformed company would have done the job…not the contract be given, by the County Council, to do the ‘same’ job to two totally ‘different’ operators!!
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Ben Walsh, Cambridge.
LikeLike
Unbelievable! Graham L.
LikeLike
there was something similar in Southport with park and ride there, I cannot recall to do with either parking was paid and bus free or the other way round giving difficulty if you just wanted to use the bus .
So the first (sic) legal question is the car park site , what bye laws are needed for its operation and how are they changed and what was the justification and conditions of any of its construction?
on a practical level if someone
LikeLike
parks in the evening do the two numbered route alternatives have a qr code to operate exit gates or are barrier raised after 1900?
JBC Prestatyn
LikeLike
I understand from news reports a broken down Hams Coaches vehicle in a town received a parking penalty notice as fine from the council as bus stop clearways or similar do not permit stopping other than picking up passengers driver change over or up to 2mins timing regulation thus if so the broken down First bus could have got a packing ticket for blocking the stop
JBC Prestatyn
LikeLike
The main central car park for Walton on Thames (Hepworth Way Multi-Storey) was closed around Christmas 2000. Alternative arrangements were thus: use the two Borough car parks at Walton on Thames Station then travel in a shuttle bus. Parking was charged for in the usual way but the shuttle bus was free. Epsom Coaches V511MGO served. This went over the ditch to the ROI and gained a new plate – 00MH10688 in Meath.
At Christmas 1996 TfL Route K50 was run free of charge, parking being laid on at Chessington WoA. To control southbound boardings in Kingston upon Thames, a “notional” ticket was issued off a Wayfarer machine at Chessington WoA before the northbound journey. My ticket showed a fare of £0.10, possibly the minimum fare that could be issued from the machine. Although part of a Travelcard jaunt, I used this service northbound only on 24/12/1996 riding SNB425 (YPL425T). I did not investigate parking charges though.
LikeLike
Shock, horror, disgraceful! However, I suspect there are two sides to this story as suggested by others. Is the P&R contract minimum cost or minimum subsidy? If on-board revenue returns to the Council to offset the operational cost of the car park and facilities, then the Council are significantly out of pocket. In any case, and rather amusingly, this has the appearance of cross-subsidy (so beloved of bus operators before deregulation). It appears that one car park is potentially operationally profitable whilst the other isn’t. If one bus company runs a commercial service to one site, the Council has to re-tender for the other site and is faced with a much higher cost than the cost for the two sites combined. I suggest more background details should be examined before explosions of rage!
LikeLike
I suspect this will be Essex CC’s argument, to be tested in the courts. However, the other view is that if this service is just a standard local bus route, then there are legal questions to be asked of public funds being used to provide competition with a private operator. More so given that I don’t think there’s any difference in the two timetables being provided so Essex can’t even claim First’s timetable is more generous. Indeed, as Roger points out, they are relying on promoting non park and ride services for evening travel.
LikeLike
The promotion of the 331 and 336 series of routes for journeys back to Sandon has occured since day 1 of the Sandon P&R. But this only applies once the dedicated P&R service has finished for the day.
LikeLike
It seems that the Council has not explained the rationale for its decision, so all we have is the fun of speculation and righteous anger.
LikeLike
Rather one-sided blog!
I doubt if many users would regard Transport Made Simple / Central Connect as “high quality”.
LikeLike
is the contract First have they pass all money to the council but operate at a fixed cost ( flexed for inflation etc) ? If so isn’t the easiest to make a 3.90 charge for parking which give free travel on the first bus? This would change Capital commercial expectations but would not be anti competitive as such.
Can BSIP funding be used for such roll over / new contracts of previous contracts?
JBC Prestatyn
LikeLike
The new bus Services contract will be awarded as Gross Cost Contracts, and the Service Commencement Date will be the 6th of March 2026. The initial contract term will be either three (3) or four (4) years, depending on the outcome of the tender
LikeLike
Sounds like Central Connect didnt know what their annual cost would be.
JBC Prestatyn
LikeLike
So you really believe that the First bus abandoned on their competitor’s bus stop had “broken down”? Why was it not parked up in the car park? Sounds like nothing more than blocking tactics to me….
LikeLike
does a faulty ticket machine stop a vehicle safely moving
JBC Prestatyn
LikeLike
It doesn’t seem right that Govt funding is used to pay for expensive Park & Ride operations when some communities around Colchester have lost their Sunday bus service
Martin W
LikeLike
that would be political choice where to spend money.
JBC Prestatyn
LikeLike
With thanks to a post on another site what are people paying for, a bus trip or a parking charge which includes a free bus journey? One will notice that there is a higher charge for not using the bus , because that is a parking charge and will include 20% VAT. If the bus ticket is also paying for parking then that too should include VAT, have ECC been paying over VAT for the last 4 years one might ask?
Talking of wasting money Roger should go and look at the vast expense of the bus priority in Colchester between the Park and Ride site and the North Station, effectively disrupting the parallel road and slowing down the buses, and removing a huge swathe of growing woodland. Absolute madness and a complete waste of BSIP money.
LikeLike
The “growing woodland” was temporary. The space had always been intended for expanded bus priority measures, hence the space being left when the adjacent housing development was constructed. This was not BSIP funded.
What is more frustrating in Colchester is the new housing developments with bus stops but absolutely no bus services. Chesterwell, Severalls, Olympic Boulevard to name a few.
LikeLike
This operator in its previous guises had refused to take up tenders awarded to them and also surrendered several mid-term leaving Essex County Council to pick up the extra costs so it is surprising ECC is having anything to do with them. Also the buses on Sandon were being parked overnight in the Park and Ride site so that should have been nominated as an operating centre. Also these dedicated buses were being used on other routes and it seems CC cannot even keep the few special liveried buses on their correct routes, eg Waterbeach and Swaffam operating in Harlow.
LikeLike
Anonymous at 10.01am picks up on the wider issue of blogs. Bloggers put ‘pen to paper’ with their view, and that’s is often all it is, a view. Balance (which isn’t a strong point, or even a necessity, of blogs) requires engagement with the service provider to understand the full picture. Without that engagement, ‘wool being pulled over eyes’, as another writer on here has said, can be an issue. But as always, you (should) read content and comment on this and other blogs with a healthy skepticism.
LikeLike
The thing is that some of the operators that fall under the Transport Made Simple banner, especially the former Go East Anglia. are very unloved in Essex and have suffered from a chronic lack of investment for well over a decade now with an aging fleet, driver shortages and vehicles that have lacked a lot of TLC.
Not sure that Transport Made Simple referring to Konectbuses as some kind of positive thing is what they think it is. The former Hedingham and Chambers operation is something that could do with some investment and if this means that their service doesn’t last and some of these vehicles need to be redeployed to Essex and Suffolk, I am sure that the long suffering passengers of those areas would be delighted.
Not saying I agree with the fact taxpayer funded money is being thrown at a service where it doesn’t need to be is a good thing, plainly it is not, but if losing this contract means that resource is freed up for services that really need some investment it might not be a bad thing for people in Essex who have had to put up with life expired dirty and well worn vehicles.
LikeLike
…and your question is?
LikeLike
So First decide to commercially operate on tms services like Hedingham ones and return to Clacton? Might be interesting
LikeLike
i get the feeling that Central Connect (and the other aliases) are an operator that cause Essex Council more hassle than is public.
You can see a pattern of behaviour which is certainly noteworthy for such a small operation (previously commented issues with Essex contracts, abandoning Nottinghamshire etc)
LikeLike
It does sound like there are legal issues here which haven’t been fully disclosed….
Showing my age, but back in 2003 Wilts & Dorset.received an out of court settlement from Poole Borough Council when the local authority pulled the plug on the Creekmoor park and ride scheme. It was a four and a half year contract and the bus company had spent over £300,000 on 3 new Optare Excels and recruited 7 new drivers, only for the contract to be cancelled after the initial festive period as it was reported to be losing over £1000 per day.
After 4 months of “negotiations”, Wilts & Dorset accepted a settlement of £75,000. Andrew Wickham’s statement was “We had hoped for a higher level of compensation to mitigate all the costs we incurred with park and ride but we have agreed to accept a lower amount in the interests of maintaining our excellent partnership which is delivering major benefits, such as real time passenger information.”
Which may well be a polite way of saying it wasn’t worth jeopardising our relationship by taking legal action.
The story so makes me think there has been some over protective legal advice given to the council or they’ve had a warning shot from First’s legal team that we will never publicly know about unless it reaches the courts. There must be more behind this….
LikeLike
Not withstanding all comments; one thing noticed in Roger’s pictures with the daftness in thermal building – they have also committed a serious health and safety breach with door given it’s a Fire Exit which must be kept unlocked at all times – but mores the legal representative must be aware they themself are skating on thin ice being complacent in the day’s proceedings being involved in handing out ‘propoganda’…
I think not just a judicial review is order, by the Area Traffic Commissioner might take a dim view too.
LikeLike
I spat my tea out when Roger called Central Connect “reputable”
Probably only because they publish a paper timetable!
LikeLike
Unless they also go under the name Stephenson…..they didn’t even bid for it!
LikeLike
By yesterday afternoon, the doors were unlocked, allowing access to CC buses
I think the issue, which Roger seems to have ignored is that the bus fare, also includes the provision of parking, at the park and ride site. It would be interesting to know, if CC had offered a departure fee, to use the P&R facility
LikeLike
I think the key in all of this may be the allegation in one of the first comments that CC forgot to tender for the service. If this is true, maybe this is their attempt to recover from that error, by claiming that the service is commercial (and one would hope that that is true and not a lie to cover their embarrassment). That may be the reason ECC are being so persistent in sticking to the new contract arrangements. I have no connection to the case and am only basing all of this on Roger’s article and the subsequent comments.
On a more general note, isn’t it time for a standard, simple payment arrangement for Park & Ride systems? There seem to be a number of variations and a national standard would encourage more uptake by drivers.
LikeLike
As a regular passenger on the 100 Service in Waterbeach, I have never had any issues with this service, the drivers are always really friendly and very helpful, the other passengers who also use this service are also happy to have a reliable frequent service and always comment on how much better it is than Stagecoach.
LikeLike
There’s no doubt more to this situation and TMS have previously questioned some of ECC decisions. Most recently they posted on their website that they were “perplexed” by not being able to adjust the timings of an ECC contract to give an even service.
TMS have expanded very quickly and like all companies have received some negative feedback from previous employees.
TMS accounts are on the Companies House website with a fairly high debt/equity ratio prior to the addition of the Konect operation.
LikeLike