www.waspies.net wrote:

I'd be surprised if a £1million fine PER DAY were "now't to that lot"!
That's the sort of contract that should have been established.
Moreover, th majority of the £1 million ought to be distributed to the
PASSENGERS who suffer as a result of the breaches of contract and not
just go back into T.F.L. coffers.


I think I'm right in saying that any fines go straight back to the
treasury, proprietor one G Brown!


Surely not?!

Can anyone pls confirm/deny?

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:40:44 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:

I'd be surprised if a £1million fine PER DAY were "now't to that lot"!
That's the sort of contract that should have been established.
Moreover, th majority of the £1 million ought to be distributed to the
PASSENGERS who suffer as a result of the breaches of contract and not
just go back into T.F.L. coffers.

I think I'm right in saying that any fines go straight back to the
treasury, proprietor one G Brown!

And I would say you are entirely wrong.
Are you sure Paul!

"Peter Masson" writes:

I see that LUL are suing Bombardier for GBP20 million over the Chancery Lane
derailment. Bombardier aren't best pleased, as the Central Line stock was
built by ABB, which was sold to Adtranz, and Adtranz was sold to Bombardier,
who don't see why they should take on their predecessors' liabilities.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...266333,00.html

Maybe if it does succeed then it might set a precedent against the
retail companies who buy out another and then (often while still
trading under the original name) refuse to honour the warranties/
extended guarantees issued by the original company.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:36:46 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:40:44 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:

I'd be surprised if a £1million fine PER DAY were "now't to that lot"!
That's the sort of contract that should have been established.
Moreover, th majority of the £1 million ought to be distributed to the
PASSENGERS who suffer as a result of the breaches of contract and not
just go back into T.F.L. coffers.

I think I'm right in saying that any fines go straight back to the
treasury, proprietor one G Brown!

And I would say you are entirely wrong.
Are you sure Paul!

Yep but I'm happy to hear your version as to how the money gets carted
down the road from 55 Broadway to Whitehall.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 13:35:30 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:

"Peter Masson" writes:

I see that LUL are suing Bombardier for GBP20 million over the Chancery Lane
derailment. Bombardier aren't best pleased, as the Central Line stock was
built by ABB, which was sold to Adtranz, and Adtranz was sold to Bombardier,
who don't see why they should take on their predecessors' liabilities.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/ar...266333,00.html

Maybe if it does succeed then it might set a precedent against the
retail companies who buy out another and then (often while still
trading under the original name) refuse to honour the warranties/
extended guarantees issued by the original company.

I suspect there's a subtle difference involving the company being sold
in one case and company assets (but not the company itself) being sold
in the other. The usual trick with "phoenix" companies seems to
involve the bankrupt/dodgy/dissolved company's assets being sold by
the receiver to a new company owned by the same people as the original
company.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:36:46 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:40:44 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:

I'd be surprised if a £1million fine PER DAY were "now't to that lot"!
That's the sort of contract that should have been established.
Moreover, th majority of the £1 million ought to be distributed to the
PASSENGERS who suffer as a result of the breaches of contract and not
just go back into T.F.L. coffers.
I think I'm right in saying that any fines go straight back to the
treasury, proprietor one G Brown!
And I would say you are entirely wrong.
Are you sure Paul!

Yep but I'm happy to hear your version as to how the money gets carted
down the road from 55 Broadway to Whitehall.
As I understand it ALL government fines are handed over to the treasury,
unless otherwise designated, presumably what you're saying (or not) is
that this is one of the designated cases where the poor performance
fines are handed over to another authority namely TFL

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:35:06 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:36:46 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:

Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:40:44 GMT, "www.waspies.net"
wrote:

I'd be surprised if a £1million fine PER DAY were "now't to that lot"!
That's the sort of contract that should have been established.
Moreover, th majority of the £1 million ought to be distributed to the
PASSENGERS who suffer as a result of the breaches of contract and not
just go back into T.F.L. coffers.
I think I'm right in saying that any fines go straight back to the
treasury, proprietor one G Brown!
And I would say you are entirely wrong.
Are you sure Paul!

Yep but I'm happy to hear your version as to how the money gets carted
down the road from 55 Broadway to Whitehall.

As I understand it ALL government fines are handed over to the treasury,
unless otherwise designated, presumably what you're saying (or not) is
that this is one of the designated cases where the poor performance
fines are handed over to another authority namely TFL

Firstly it is not a fine. Secondly the contract is not with the
government - it is between LU (a trading subsidiary of TfL) and each
Infraco. Thirdly the contract does not stipulate a fine; it has a
performance regime which records performance and then either provides
bonuses or abatements depending on whether performance is good or bad.
Any reductions from the service charge are simply part of the normal
cash management process and reflect cash that stays within LU for other
expenditure be it bonuses to another Infraco or payment for other works
to whichever company might be doing that work / providing that service.
This money could be used for anything - not just PPP stuff.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

Fair enough, just goes to show how bloody complicated the whole thing is.

A Good service is operating my arse.


Firstly it is not a fine. Secondly the contract is not with the
government - it is between LU (a trading subsidiary of TfL) and each
Infraco. Thirdly the contract does not stipulate a fine; it has a
performance regime which records performance and then either provides
bonuses or abatements depending on whether performance is good or bad.
Any reductions from the service charge are simply part of the normal
cash management process and reflect cash that stays within LU for other
expenditure be it bonuses to another Infraco or payment for other works
to whichever company might be doing that work / providing that service.
This money could be used for anything - not just PPP stuff.