Taxi Driver Online

Doubt this kind of thing particularly unusual, but the local press certainly giving it a good amount of coverage

But the technicalities here defo one for those with experience in stuff like this


Lewes drivers ‘devastated’ after school taxi contract handed to Essex firm

https://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/pe ... rm-3321025

Drivers in Lewes have been left ‘devastated’ after school taxi contracts were awarded to a new firm based in Essex.

The recent retendering saw East Sussex County Council award most of its ‘one school’ contracts, where one provider supplies all of the vehicles and staff to a school, to 24×7 Limited.

James Kiernan, a Unite member who represents Lewes Hackney Drivers said drivers only found out the news two weeks ago, when 24x7 Limited representatives came to hand out leaflets at taxi ranks in the area.

Mr Kiernan has had a contract with the same school for 18 months but no longer knows whether this will continue come September.

It has been his only source of work throughout the pandemic.

Mr Kiernan has been a hackney carriage driver for around 22 years, but said: “If I can’t secure anything come September, how long I will last in the trade I don’t know.”

Many other taxi drivers are in the same situation, he said.

“They are devastated,” he said. “It’s sheer panic. It’s going to have an impact on everyone, basically.

“Sometimes these drivers, they might start with the children in the infants, and then when they move to seniors they move up with them.

“They don’t like change, these children.”

While 24x7 Limited is advertising for local drivers, Mr Kiernan was concerned they would not offer secure, long-term contracts, adding that – as it currently stands – the company does not have an operator licence with the council.

Councillor James MacCleary said: “The concerns are around the lack of transparency there’s been in the process.

“It’s been a bit of a shock the way taxi drivers and councillors have found out.

“It’s the impact not only on the drivers themselves, their livelihoods and their ability to continue operating in the area, but the impact on the children – many of whom are vulnerable.

“It’s very difficult to build up this trusting relationship with a driver who takes them to school or wherever they are going. These relationships are going to be lost.

“That’s quite a reckless risk that the county council are taking.”

In an open letter posted on Twitter, Lewes District Council’s licensing committee chairman Sean Macleod (Lib Dem) called on the county council to give details of its new school taxi contract.

In his letter, Cllr Macleod said: “We need to support our local trade through what has been an extremely difficult and complex 18 months due to Covid-19, and while trade is improving, it will take some time to get back to the level it was before.

“For many Lewes District drivers the school contracts are their bread and butter.

“They are what keeps the roof over their heads and the meals on the tables.

“But I need to stress Lewes District Council has no say on this whole process and it is fully East Sussex County Council who have gone down this road.

“I want to be clear. I will fight for Lewes District taxi drivers.

“I know drivers think we don’t listen but I hope many realise that I do and I want to continue the good relationship I have gained with the trade.”

The letter goes on to call on the county council to explain why the company, which is based in Essex, was awarded the contract over a more local contractor.

He also called on the county council to give details of how many drivers will be affected by the changes and to offer assurances to parents of pupils who use the taxi services.

When approached for comment, an East Sussex County Council spokesman said: “All of our contracts are regularly reviewed to ensure we continue to get the best value for money.

“Nine of our ‘one school’ contracts, where one provider supplies all of the vehicles and staff to a school, have been recently retendered resulting in 24×7 Limited being awarded the seven of these contracts.

“While 24×7 Limited’s head office is based in Essex, their drivers and passenger assistants will be East Sussex based and will include those wishing to transfer from current providers under TUPE arrangements.

“24×7 Limited have a very good training programme, which is above and beyond what we specify in our contact.

“We will continue to ensure that all eligible children are provided with safe and appropriate transport that meets their needs.

Well that's fair enough. Current drivers will be able to do those runs.

Be interested to see if the rates stay the same.

My experience of school run work is that it never works when a firm is based way outside the area.

Biggest problem is what happens when a car goes down, yet those kids still need to go to school.

A local firm will have cars free on the circuit to cover.

_________________
IDFIMH

It will be interesting to see IF they can recruit sufficient local drivers to fulfil the contract

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

TUPE! Only people who are employees of one company can be transferred under TUPE, self employed people are not covered by this provision. We had an issue with TUPE a few years ago when another operator "won" one of our existing contracts by going through the list of jobs that had been awarded and then contacting the County Council and offering to do the jobs cheaper. The Council gave us notice of the change and I mentioned the the driver and escort were employed by us specifically to do that contract because of the medical needs of the students and because of this they would like to transfer under TUPE. At first the County Council did not accept that TUPE applied but I argued the case for the driver and escort. The new provider then interviewed the driver and escort saying that he would transfer them. The driver recorded the interview and they were told that they would not be employees but self employed and told them what they would be paid, less that they were getting from us. I went back to the County Council and provided their contracts of employment and after a month of going back and forth, the other operator pulled out. It could be an interesting summer because the County Council have put the contract out to tender for next year. I will mention TUPE again when the tender comes out.

_________________
Grandad,

I know a local operator who said that if he lost this kind of work then any new contractor would have to employ his account staff, his dispatch staff, and his school escorts.

_________________
IDFIMH

Dunno if they're well known down that way, but they seem to be a despatch operation specialising in school runs, effectively

They also seem to run the Stansted Airport taxis operation.

They say:


Suspect a few holes could be picked in that claim for a start.

I'd guess they're the school run equivalent of Uber

http://www.24x7ltd.co.uk/index.php

They are quite infamous and their drivers are the most agressive drivers you see on the motorways

and they have had one or two big legal battles over drivers status and had to go bust and start again as a result ! A few years ago now

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

The other thing with TUPE is that the person has to have been working only on that job. So in our case it would just be the escort now because the driver also does other work now that she didn't do last time. But they do need to be employees with a written contract of employment.

_________________
Grandad,

Not quite right, the driver has to beemployed on that contract on a regular basis. He can do other work for the company too.

When I operated on the Romney Marsh via my limited company, we lost a good contract having bought. Merc 8 seater for that job, after only a few weeks. It went to a firm in tunbridge Wells, some 45 miles from the Romney Marsh. I mentioned TUPE, he'd never heard of it. Quite how he could do 45 miles dead each way (180 miles run to and from his area) for £45 wasa mystery. He dropped the job after a few weeks. Obviously didn't know the area or the law.

When my school bus run contract expired (it was a registered local bu service which carrie entitled scholars) it went to another local operator for far less than my price. I told him on the Friday I am his new driver on Monday due to TUPE. He told me to "go away", not heard of TUPE. I put a claim in against him in Industrial Tribunal. He went broke, so contract went temporarily to an operator 30 mile away. It got re-tendered and was won by KCC's own bus company, using a brand new coach £280k's worth) coming 45 miles from Maidstone every day for 25% less than i'd tendered. They too joined the TUPE queue. Cut a long story short, I won a 5-figure sum, most of which went on legal fees, but proved a point that Kent wasn't exempt from TUPE. The point being I was employed on a regular basis to drive that route, especially during the last week of my operations.

Well this is all going swimmingly

So the firm ordered 160 new vehicles for the school contracts but they haven't been delivered?

160 new vehicles just for school contracts in East Sussex?


Apology for disruption to East Sussex’s school taxi service under new contract

https://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news ... ct-3373032

East Sussex County Council has apologised to parents after problems arose with a new school taxi contract.

In July, the county council awarded seven ‘one school’ taxi contracts to 24×7 Limited, a specialist school transport company, which has its head office in Essex.

The move had come in for some criticism, with a campaign from local taxi drivers and a number of parents calling on the authority to revisit its decision.

While the council stood by its decision, matters got off to a rocky start after the firm reported it had not received the 160 new vehicles it had ordered to serve its new contract.

This led to a number of last-minute changes to pupils’ school transport plans, leading the council to write to parents last week to apologise for the disruption.

In a press statement, an East Sussex County Council spokesman said: “We appreciate the concerns raised by the parents and join with 24×7 to apologise for any upset and anxiety that has been caused by unexpected issues with the supply of vehicles by a manufacturer.

“We want to reassure them that, whilst we work with the provider to address the issues that have affected some families, safe and appropriate transport will be provided to enable their children to travel to school.

“Following the outcome of a robust and competitive tendering process, we wrote to families over the summer to advise them of changes and introduce new providers where there has been a change. We have been in contact again apologising for the current situation and explaining the arrangements in place, and will continue to keep them updated as we work towards a solution.

“24×7 have worked successfully with other local authorities and we are confident that they can overcome the current situation and provide a high quality and reliable service in the county.”

The situation has seen further criticism levelled at the council by a number of opposition councillors.

Cllr David Tutt, leader of the council’s Liberal Democrat group, said: “The Conservative administration that runs the county council decided to re-tender the contract for home to school transport.

“The company who won the contract could then not deliver two of the routes as they apparently had insufficient vehicles, drivers and passenger assistants or any backup vehicles in the case of a breakdown.

“Two parts of the contract then had to be cancelled leaving parents in the lurch.”

Cllr Sarah Osborne, Liberal Democrat councillor for Ouse Valley West and Downs, added: “This shambles has left parents, including parents of some of our most vulnerable children, faced with uncertainty and confusion at the start of the school term.

“We have heard that some children were not collected at all. Our children have been through enough disruption in the last year without this inept contract management. The Conservatives need to sort this out as a top priority.”

as the old saying goes "their eyes were bigger than their belly"

I had a phone call last week from an operator who has taken on loads of contracts many from a long way away but he was looking to see if I would supply drivers to cover them

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

I will not help out these carpetbagger firms, ever. It’s inevitable that anyone who does, will get their fingers burnt, as I did, any many others did, with Fraser Eagle.
It’ll end in tears.

_________________
Former taxi driver

What a load of old fanny.

Why did they need new vehicles when they were getting the existing trade to cover the work, or was that a lie when they said that earlier?

And according to the article above only two school runs have been messed up. 160 cars for two runs.

Is this a licensing requirement for some operators to lie lie lie.

_________________
IDFIMH

Article certainly makes it sound like it's more than a couple of runs.

Opposition councillor David Tutt said "two routes" hadn't been delivered and "two parts of the contract" were cancelled. (A classic example of a councillor tut-tutting )

But 24x7 were awarded up to nine 'one school' contracts, where they provide all the cars for one school, so could that mean two whole schools have been cancelled?

Who knows - it's not entirely clear, but it sounds a bit more than two problematic runs out of several dozen, or maybe even one hundred plus in total