Decision

Decision for Stagecoach North West Limited T/A Stagecoach Cumbria And North Lancashire (PC0002407)

Published 1 August 2024

0.1 In the North Western Traffic Area

1. Written Decision of the Deputy Traffic Commissioner

2. Public Inquiry held on 30 April 2024 at Golborne

2.1 Operator: Stagecoach North West Limited T/A Stagecoach Cumbria And North Lancashire (PC0002407)

3. Decision

The Operator is issued with a FORMAL WARNING for its failure to operate certain of its registered bus services in its operating area of Barrow, Carlisle, Kendal, Morecambe, and West Cumbria under section 6 of the Transport Act 2000 or operated a service in contravention of that section, taking account of the guidance provided in the Senior Traffic Commissioner’s Statutory Document no. 14 ( SD 14)  on Local Bus Services in England (outside London) and Wales.  In making this decision whilst I am satisfied that the Operator has on occasions failed to comply with certain of its registered services, ‘without reasonable excuse’, I find that this is not a case where the imposition of any penalty or sanction is needed to focus the mind of this operator so as to achieve the statutory purpose of section 155 of the Transport Act 2000.  Bus operation is complex and susceptible to external factors.  In the case of this operator, it is also subject to region- specific additional factors, particularly concerning driver and skilled mechanic recruitment and retention that it has been actively addressing, additional to fleet investment, with demonstrated improvements achieved.

If ,in future, substantial and substantiated complaints are received from travelling passengers using the registered local services provided by this Operator, or their elected representatives, a meaningful representative sample of the Operator’s services in question shall be required from a fresh monitoring exercise by DVSA, with the Operator responding on a case by case basis to the alleged failures found on DVSA monitoring to operate or failures to operate in accordance with the registered particulars outside of the ‘window of tolerance’, with details of any ‘reasonable excuse’ pleaded on a case by case basis.  

4. Background

The Operator had been called to Public Inquiry by the Traffic Commissioner following complaints from members of the public and Parliament which led to a subsequent DVSA investigation in December 2023 and March 2024 reported through a Bus Compliance Assessment Report (BCAR).  The services that were in question as part of the DVSA investigation were services 5,30,50 X5 and the 685. As part of that investigation, the Operator provided DVSA with manually combined data from its records to create a compliance score which provides a whole route level aggregate compliance percentage in line with the guidance in SD 14, that is within the ‘window of tolerance’ of – 1 minute and + 5 minutes.   The figures resulting were less than 95%.

The Public Inquiry took place before me at the OTC Golborne on 30 April 2024.  The Operator attended acting by its Managing Director Mr Tom Waterhouse and Mr David Rich, its head of Commercial Services and one of the Transport Managers nominated on its operator’s licence. The Operator was represented by Mr James Backhouse of Backhouse Jones, Solicitors.

Action has been limited by me to a formal warning having considered the very detailed submissions and report, supported by oral and comprehensive documentary evidence, provided by the Operator concerning the services provided by it, the resources available to it to provide these services, and its response to the DVSA BCAR. Having considered that detailed evidence, I have been left with no doubt that this Operator takes the matter of service provision very seriously and acknowledges that the viability of its business requires the ongoing patronage of its customers for whom affordability and reliability are key performance indicators. It is therefore motivated and committed to achieving customer satisfaction and meeting customer needs.

I am satisfied that the Operator engages appropriately with the relevant local authorities in its area with Enhanced Partnership Schemes with Lancashire County Council, Westmoreland & Furness Council and Cumberland Council, with each Scheme having a Bus Improvement Plan. Traffic Congestion is a particular challenge when targeting improvements in reliability.  An example letter was provided from Lancashire County Council, party to the Lancashire Enhanced Partnership, dated 18 April 2024 which mentions: ‘Congestion continues to play a part in the reliability of public transport services.  It is anticipated that the improvements planned, which include a number of bus and traffic light priority projects, as well as bus service enhancements, will be delivered in the next 18 months.’

I recognise that the ability to meet the registered particulars for the services being provided within the ‘window of tolerance’ starts with the timetabling process. This is a complicated multifactor exercise based on journey data and analysis and balancing of various objectives including, for example, the need for a timetable to:

• be understandable to customers and not overcomplicated;

• meet customer’s needs that would be adversely affected by including additional time within every journey, particularly over longer rural routes, and result in unnecessary stopping times lengthening journey times overall;

• be achievable in reasonably foreseeable circumstances through the expected timetable period, achievable in average expected road conditions, without multiple timetable alterations that may confuse the travelling public.

In the particular instance, a number of complaints had been received regarding the monitored services, which I find have been thoroughly investigated by the Operator.  The Operator’s investigation identified that the majority of the complaints derived from one main complainant using a database source which was flawed for technical reasons, such that the complaints were factually unfounded.  There were, however, a number of remaining complaints received from actual travelling passengers using the monitored services, including in particular service 685, which runs from Carlisle to Newcastle, whilst operating between Haltwhistle and Hexham, which were substantiated on investigation. The Operator has positively addressed the concerns raised, through for example on the 685 service with timetable changes and only using double decked buses, with improved punctuality on the route concerned, to be kept under review.

The Operator explained to me the particular challenges faced by any operator operating in its geographic area that had been identified by it as material contributing factors in the lost mileage and punctuality issues - relating to driver availability and a shortage of skilled mechanics to repair and maintain its fleet.  I found the steps described as taken and being taken by the Operator to address these particular issues affecting this region, as well as substantial investment in new vehicles, to be compelling and consistent with an operator taking reasonable steps to address the problems it has identified through its own various continuous methods of performance monitoring.

Having considered all of the above, whilst the performance figures  achieved are disappointing, improvement steps have been taken and are ongoing such that I have  ordered as in paragraphs 1 and 2.

Fiona Harrington
DTC NW

1 July 2024