Taxi Driver Online

Taxi boss in wrangle with SBC over ‘free’ journeys for pupil escorts

The region’s largest private taxi operator is engaged in a bitter wrangle with Scottish Borders Council over the cash it receives for transporting children with special needs to and from school. Colin McLaren, who runs Galashiels-based Mobility Assist (Scotland) Ltd and Five Star Taxis, claims the council “appears to have moved the goalposts” after he signed a three-year contract under a new framework agreement introduced this summer.

He claims his firm, which has a fleet of more than 80 wheelchair-accessible vehicles and employs 100 full and part-time staff, is losing so much money as a result of the new deal that he may be forced to pull the plug on the service. And he believes the terms of the agreement are so disadvantageous that no other commercial operator will be prepared to step into the breach.

One of the many contracts his company fulfilled during the last scholastic session involved transporting a child, along with an escort – a council employee – on the 55-mile journey from Kelso to Edinburgh’s Royal Blind School. The vehicle would then return the escort home and pick them up again in the afternoon before heading back to the city. The service is completed when both student and escort are driven back to the Borders.

“The contract price which we submitted and was accepted covered the 220 miles for the four journeys this service involves,” explained Mr McLaren. But he claims that under the new framework agreement for the procurement of taxi services, he is only being paid a mileage rate for two of the four journeys.

“In essence, we are now only being paid for taking the pupil to and from the school, while the transport of the escort up and down is being done for free. “This is just one example of what is happening to my company under the framework agreement and it is certainly not what we understood when we accepted the new price-per-mile rate. It would be commercial suicide for any operator not to factor in the transport of escorts when taking on such a contract.”

Mr McLaren claims that the council is aware that he believed the agreed price-per-mile rate was to cover total mileage and that its interpretation of the framework agreement is not consistent with the terms laid out in the tender document. He has now engaged a prominent procurement lawyer in a bid to resolve the issue, although correspondence he has received from Newtown indicates, he claims, little room for manoeuvre.

SBC leader Councillor David Parker, who has been lobbied by Mr McLaren, told us: “We introduced a framework agreement earlier this year which introduces a consistent process for awarding contracts/service delivery for a range of taxi transportation, including that of children with special needs. “The pricing structure for journeys involving a client and an escort has not changed and remains in keeping with previous practice ... all our suppliers are aware of this practice and work on this basis.

“We are not aware of any legal action being taken against the council on this matter. If any operator does have a concern, they should contact the appropriate council department so we can answer any specific queries.”

Mr McLaren told us: “I can only assume that Councillor Parker has been ill advised because that response is far from accurate. “My lawyer shares my view that the tender guidance does not reflect the wording of the framework agreement and that nowhere in the agreement does it state that suppliers would be required to carry escorts without receiving payments.

“I have tried to negotiate a compromise, but SBC has refused to discuss any of the issues, claiming any discussions with me as a service provider could place me in a position of advantage compared to other providers. “The local taxi operators’ association has also emailed the council to say its members were unhappy with the misrepresentation of the framework. They asked for further discussions, but there has been no response from SBC.”

_________________
IDFIMH

We don't have one anymore it was disbanded due to lack of interest 2 years ago.

If company's are going to bid for contracts they should put in a realistic bid and not bids that undercut the competition
The council should be told its meter price less 10% take it or leave it and if everyone did that the council would have to pay up or they would be fecked

I missed that story as its not on the grapevine here unless it was in one of the local rags

At last, one of the I'll do it for nothing mob gets caught short, they should be made to honour that contract or pay penalties, the Eddie Stobart's of the cab world seem to want it all, slave drivers and big radio charges, and all to mug anyone else out of it, I think a contract is a contract, and had the boot been on the other foot the Addison Lee clone company would be screaming for justice, so, keys in the ignition boys, you have folks waiting for you


55 miles each way job, I wonder whose car used to get that one when it was still considered a good job

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=17308

This is what they did to parents who take there kids to school in the family car who have no other transport.

Has has the biggest fleet in the Borders so if he pulled the plug the council would be fecked, and no one else would do the runs, as no one else has more than 5 vehicles

Simple answer is to offer the jobs to the individual cars that want to do the job.

I didn't realise the biggest competition only had 5 vehicles up there Skip, but this is what happens when one gets too big, no more competition and fixed pricing that isn't always fair.

Do you know what the job paid per run by any chance, that will give me an idea of who is being fair and who isn't, if it's like £75 per 55 mile run then I'd say that's fair for a contract, if it's a £1 a mile then I don't blame the op for going merc on them, but then again he agreed to it in the first place didn't he.

No idea of costs but they should be on the council web site, or the procurement one http://www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/

I dont know how the rest of the UK bids, but allegedly in Edinburgh they get the meter or close to the meter price

Don't you do a 25% discount, Skippy?

_________________
Former taxi driver

Why the discount?

_________________
Grandad,

The firms maybe paying the drivers meter rates, but be in no doubt the firms ain't getting it from the council.

_________________
IDFIMH

Changed it, now have a £3.00 min so discounts only start from there, the max discount is £1.00 so if the fare is £3.50 they get £0.50 off, there is no discount if the run does not start or end in the town, or after midnight
The problem here is when the contracts come up for renewal all the firms who want them try and under cut each other and thats a no brain-er really as the driver can loose out as well as the owner, but the council has said the driver must be paid the min wage for the time they take to complete the contract, most drivers dont know this as the owners dont let on

I do!

_________________
Grandad,

The Guys talking utter Sh*te..............I do school contract work on behalf of the SBC and it was always made very clear that the price would have to be based on the Distance travelled by the pupil only and not the Distance of the Overall journeys, there was even a question and answer period which went over this ground several times.........

The Less stupid in our Midst realised this fact from the outset and Tendered a price of approximately double the Pupil Milage. This allowed a modest profit on these runs.

If it were the case where the Pupil Milage Cost that you tendered was woefully unprofitable then you had a right not to accept the work and would pass it on the next price ranked operator on the framework who possibly pitched their bid more realistically...and if all that still failed to procure an operator then it would go to a Mini tender quote..and who ever put in the lowest bid would win it.


This guy could not have been so stupid..surely!! to Realise that he Entered an unprofitable Framework price. Even after that he would be offered the run on the Price he tendered and if he didnt like what was being offered he could still have said NO and should have said NO,

They have no excuse for getting in Pickle with the SBC...it was bleeding obvious how it worked.

Maybe theyve tried to be crafty and win as many runs as they could at stating ridiculously low framework prices and hoped that because of their shear scale of operations would be offered extra money later due to their being so Indespensible...........Wrong!!!!!!!!!

The Council would be foolls to cave in to their greedy demands for cash ( it may well prove illegal to up their price in such a way under EU competition laws), especially as many other operators who lost out on these contracts had to suffer financial hardship, downscale or even fold due to the work these fools accepted...it would be a travesty of justice indeed if they got one penny more.

bloodnock ~ You're a Star ~ Reality and Common Sense has emerged at last

_________________
Don't dream it ~ Be it.

Its Not so much the Cost per Mile that caught these numpties out...it was the Bit where they failed to read that they would only get paid for the Milage that the Pupil was actually in the Vehicle.

They have no excuse, it was made obvious several times on the Tender for Framework contract that this was how it would work. everybody else took the Pupil Milage and literally Doubled it for the total journey milage and base a Price per mile on that...A reasonable Pupil Milage Price for that would be around £1.40/50 quoted, which equals 70p/75P for each and every mile you cover.

Its not rocket Science....I cant see how their Lawyers can win a case on their sheer Stupidity to read a contract correctly.