Taxi Driver Online
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Does anyone remember..
http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22907		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  roythebus [ Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:08 am ]
Post subject:  Does anyone remember..
what I believe was a county court case where a ph driver was taken to court because he charged the dead mileage to a remote pick-up; the passenger refused to pay the dead mileage, it went to court and the court found in the driver's favour, saying that a ph was entitled to charge for dead mileage.

I'm currently in dispute with Kent County Council refusing to accept that dead mileage is not part of the "home to school" contract, the clue being in the words!
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Does anyone remember..
roythebus wrote:
what I believe was a county court case where a ph driver was taken to court because he charged the dead mileage to a remote pick-up; the passenger refused to pay the dead mileage, it went to court and the court found in the driver's favour, saying that a ph was entitled to charge for dead mileage.

I'm currently in dispute with Kent County Council refusing to accept that dead mileage is not part of the "home to school" contract, the clue being in the words!


surely a price is a price, if it includes or excludes dead miles is your choice...
Author:  bloodnock [ Sat Aug 24, 2013 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Does anyone remember..
roythebus wrote:
what I believe was a county court case where a ph driver was taken to court because he charged the dead mileage to a remote pick-up; the passenger refused to pay the dead mileage, it went to court and the court found in the driver's favour, saying that a ph was entitled to charge for dead mileage.

I'm currently in dispute with Kent County Council refusing to accept that dead mileage is not part of the "home to school" contract, the clue being in the words!


As PH you can charge what you want....That's why When we Price school Contract Tenders we factor that into the Price, as a rule of thumb you enter Double the price of the Actual Pupils Travelled mileage and that covers dead return Mileage at the same price as live milage. Thats where a Framework price backfires, it removes your ability to tender for Individual runs on their own merits and price accordingly. It's a one size does all approach to pricing that don't work so good. Eventually many runs end up as Mini Tenders and get priced outside the Framework Tender price, but that's after nobody would want them as they wouldn't generate a profit.

One Contractor up here Didn't twig that and they ended up doing the Runs for Half their true worth then tried to argue they couldn't afford to continue doing so....It fecked it up for everybody else as these clowns got most of the best contracts as their price seemed to good to be true....and that's because it was.

How that would work for a Hack I don't know...as they should work to meter prices, so in doing so if they Priced hire than a Meter price for A contract tender to allow for dead mileage then I guess they could be breaching some rule or another... :-k
Author:  Sussex [ Sat Aug 24, 2013 7:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Does anyone remember..
roythebus wrote:
I'm currently in dispute with Kent County Council refusing to accept that dead mileage is not part of the "home to school" contract, the clue being in the words!

Normally the actual job will be priced for the miles the client is in, however those rules go out of the window if you have an escort that needs to be taken home.

If you have quoted a round trip mileage price then as long as it's not viewed as a hidden charge, then that's the price.

All depends what was on the tender.
Author:  roythebus [ Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:02 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Does anyone remember..
The KCC tender says 2home to school2. The scenario is that the pupil was not a regular attendee and sometimes we'd take him but he didn't "go to school" even tho we dropped him there and collected him in the afternoon.

there was a lot of days where we went to collect him, a 10 mile round trip, and he didn't go or wasn't there! we charged for the run but KCC are demanding money back as we didn't take him, even though there was the 10 miles dead run which we've lost out on, hence the original question.
on that basis, we could go to Worcester or Bournemouth to collect a boarder who wasn't there, so we wouldn't get paid for that either. It really encourages us to tender for KCC work, not.
Author:  grandad [ Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Does anyone remember..
roythebus wrote:
The KCC tender says 2home to school2. The scenario is that the pupil was not a regular attendee and sometimes we'd take him but he didn't "go to school" even tho we dropped him there and collected him in the afternoon.

there was a lot of days where we went to collect him, a 10 mile round trip, and he didn't go or wasn't there! we charged for the run but KCC are demanding money back as we didn't take him, even though there was the 10 miles dead run which we've lost out on, hence the original question.
on that basis, we could go to Worcester or Bournemouth to collect a boarder who wasn't there, so we wouldn't get paid for that either. It really encourages us to tender for KCC work, not.

That is an interesting one. If you have taken the student in to school in the morning and you have not been informed that the return journey is not required, then they should pay. Similarly, if you have turned up at the students house to take him to school and he doesn't go and you had not been informed prior to leaving, they should pay. Sometimes, our council, when they know that a student is a poor attendee, they ask for a price for non attendance days as well as attendance days. I don't usually tender for these but if I do tender, I put down for the full days money.
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Does anyone remember..
Tell them its in YOUR T&C's that wasted journeys get paid for

(then type it up quick)
Author:  grandad [ Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Does anyone remember..
wannabeeahack wrote:
Tell them its in YOUR T&C's that wasted journeys get paid for

(then type it up quick)

YOUR terms and conditions don't count. You agree to THEIR terms and conditions or you don't get the work.
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Does anyone remember..
grandad wrote:
wannabeeahack wrote:
Tell them its in YOUR T&C's that wasted journeys get paid for

(then type it up quick)

YOUR terms and conditions don't count. You agree to THEIR terms and conditions or you don't get the work.


thats assuming its itemised in thier T&C's

is it?

it isnt in staffs or leics CC T&C's
Author:  wannabeeahack [ Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Does anyone remember..
Quote:
24. No payment will be made for journeys that run early or, through the fault of the Contractor, run more than 30 minutes late or not at all. Payment will be reduced by a third for journeys which run, through the fault of the Contractor, between 10 and 30 minutes late. For these purposes the price of the contract will be deemed to be spread evenly across the annual or daily contract mileage as appropriate. Please note that it is expected that every effort is made to operate all journeys. Regular lateness should be reported to the Council e.g. passenger not ready at specified pick-up time.

25. No payment will be made for any contracted journey(s) cancelled before their operation. For any journey cancelled with very short notice, for example when a driver has left for a pick-up, the Council will pay the normal rate for that journey.


Clearly no communication or cancellation is not the contractors fault
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/