Judicial Review

Ticket office closures mean Londoners will pay double for day trips outside the TfL boundary

Our new data project, based on 82 of the busiest stations in South East England, finds that if ticket offices are closed, Londoners will have to pay much more to take day trips outside the city – often double or even triple the price to destinations very close to the TfL boundary.

This is because of the expected withdrawal of special ‘boundary fare’ prices, which are only guaranteed to be available at ticket offices – and not on the major online platforms, nor most ticket vending machines. All Freedom Pass and London Travelcard holders are entitled to these lower prices, because their pass already covers their travel within the TfL boundary. So, anyone in this situation who purchases a full-price National Rail return is already paying much more than they have to.

Our findings include price hikes of up to 190% for an off-peak day return to Dartford, and 243% for a peak-time day return to Epsom, Surrey. The effective removal of these fares from purchase has huge equality and consumer rights implications. Once again, the biggest impacts will fall on the Londoners on the lowest incomes, especially older and disabled people holding ‘Freedom Passes.’

Boundary fares are not widely advertised, and neither National Rail Enquiries nor Trainline offers this as a search option, despite providing this for all the other main railcards, including regionally specific ones. (This issue has become so controversial that rail industry is already undergoing a multi-million pound class action for its concealment of boundary fares, in breach of consumer rights and competition law.)

Results of the boundary fares data project

Our survey covers 82 of the busiest stations in the South East selected according to the highest footfall station in each parliamentary constituency. This is the South East region as defined by ORR on their station information page, covering all of Kent, Surrey, East and West Sussex, Hampshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, and parts of Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire. The relevant train operators are Govia Thameslink, Southeastern, Chiltern, Great Western and South Western and London North Western. Ticket prices were collected across the two main day return ticket types – Off Peak Day Return (CDR) and Anytime Day Return (SDR). The data compares the National Rail Enquiries price on these tickets with their, much cheaper, boundary fare option, sourced from brfares.com

See the Top Ten worst examples in both off-peak and peak tickets below, and the full data for the 82 stations can be downloaded here.

The impact of fare hikes on all Londoners

The aim of our research is to highlight that the fight against the closure of ticket offices should be a key concern for every region. In London’s case, the stealth removal of boundary fares is the perfect example of how ticket office closures mean equality law and consumer rights breaches affecting every demographic.

In this case, once again, we see the disproportionate impact fall on older and disabled people, who as residents of London boroughs, are entitled to a freedom pass, covering off-peak, and peak travel respectively. The price hike in most of our findings is so severe as to present an insurmountable barrier to travel for some of the lowest income groups, also restricting access to cash purchase.

It will reduce access to leisure travel, and employment (especially self-employment), and the care work and support that so many people on low incomes provide for their families living outside the city (for example, grandchildren and older relatives). In this sense, the removal of boundary fares will affect even non-users of rail – and in all of the most vulnerable and low income demographics.

The price hikes will also affect all London Travelcard holders (whether weekly, monthly or annual), which could include anyone regularly working or travelling in the city, as well as tourists to London. This creates huge cost barriers to travel for everyone, with the heaviest impacts falling on Londoners on the lowest incomes; and discouraging use of the mainline railway for those who want to travel more in future, which may be essential to their employment and wellbeing.

Urgent questions to protect passengers

1) Increased costs and risk of £100 penalty fare

Freedom Pass and London Travelcard holders will also be subject to an increased threat from the new £100 penalty fare, hiked from £20 in January this year. We asked the Rail Delivery Group how passengers can still buy these tickets, how they can get the difference refunded if forced to buy a more expensive ticket, and how they can defend themselves if challenged by a ticket inspector with an unjust penalty fare.

However, the RDG failed to provide a solution to any of these problems. Neither the industry pledge that “customers will never have to travel out of their way to buy tickets”, nor their following claim, have any basis in reality.

“…in rare cases where customers are unable to buy the ticket they need at a station, they would be able to buy on their journey, at a ticket selling facility en-route or at their end destination. Across the network as a whole, many ticket retailing facilities will remain open at busy interchanges, smoothing the transition.”

In fact, the operators around Greater London include the six operators running driver-only trains on many lines, preventing ticket purchase onboard. If the closure plans go forward, it is unlikely there will be a ticket office at the journey’s endpoint either, so the Rail Delivery Group is actively suggesting here that people should break their journey unnecessarily to buy a ticket, or travel out of their way to buy one.

2) Boundary fare prices unavailable online or at most ticket machines

Boundary fares are unavailable online or at most ticket vending machines, so many passengers require assistance, or advice, from ticket office clerks even to access these fares. We asked the Rail Delivery Group to say whether they had any plans to make these tickets available on online retailing platforms, such as their own platform National Rail Enquiries, or Trainline. This could easily be added as a search function, where many regional and disabled people’s railcards are already listed.

The Rail Delivery Group refused to respond to this question but said:

“An estimated 99% of all transactions made at ticket offices last year can be made at Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs) or online. Where needed, TVMs across the network will be upgraded to sell a greater range of tickets…Across the network as a whole, there will be more staff available to give face to face help to customers out in stations than there are today.”

This statement is highly misleading. Firstly, the claim of 99%, which we note the Rail Delivery Group is now advertising as 97% as part of their extensive Google ads campaign linking to the consultation. It is currently impossible to trust their figures, but if 97% is accurate, this still leaves 3% of 55 million fare types.

The situation is even worse for ticket vending machines, where 18%, or 1 in 5 tickets purchased by passengers are currently unavailable. The unavailable tickets will of course include many of the cheaper fare options, as these are the ones most dependant on personalized advice from ticket office staff, due to the labyrinthine fares system.

Finally, as we argued in our recent expert letter on ticket office closures, any RDG commitments on staffing, ticket retail upgrades – or indeed any kind of future plans – have no regulatory or contractual basis.

For more information, contact@abcommuters.com

This post was updated on 24.08.2023. to add a screenshot of the Rail Delivery Group’s Sponsored Google Ad.

Ministers Exposed: 94 midlands stations to become completely unstaffed

Our emergency research project uncovers the truth behind the government’s claim that “no currently staffed station will become unstaffed”. At two midlands operators, around 94 stations are set to become completely unstaffed once the ticket office consultations are over.

The consultation documents show that at West Midlands Trains (WMT), 78 stations would become unstaffed under the plans. Added to WMT’s current total of 59 unstaffed stations, the number would increase to 137 (94% of its network). Of a total 146 WMT stations, only 9 would retain ticket offices.

At East Midlands Railway (EMR), 16 stations would become unstaffed – increasing from 74 at present to a total of 90 unstaffed stations (87% of its network). Of a total 103 EMR stations, only 7 would keep ticket offices open.

Mass discrimination in the midlands

This means the end of advertised staffing hours at 91% of stations across the two midlands operators – due to the use of the Rail Delivery Group’s “Schedule 17” consultation process, which will remove all regulatory requirements for scheduled staffing.

The only substitute for station staff at the above locations will be unscheduled “mobile staffing”, denying access not only to ticketing services but also station facilities such as toilets and heated waiting rooms. WMT has proposed that staff from “new mobile teams” will be deployed to unstaffed locations “on a flexible basis”, while EMR suggests “we expect [daily or weekly] visits from mobile staff.”

The operators’ plans guarantee mass discrimination across the midlands. Currently, 1 in 5 tickets purchased by customers are unavailable from ticket vending machines; which can also be completely inaccessible to disabled people. The withdrawal of station assistance means that disabled passengers – and all passengers seeking better value tickets, advice and refunds – will have to travel to one of the few remaining ticket offices at bigger stations. This also raises questions about the legitimacy of the new £100 penalty fare, which the DfT increased from £20 in January this year.

What does this say about the national overview?

WMT and EMR were selected as 1) a regional case study on the Midlands and 2) a severe example of station destaffing. Currently, it is impossible to say if the withdrawal of staffing hours in this region is worse than any other, as operators have disguised the scale of stealth destaffing taking place. For example, a recent data project by activist Doug Paulley, shows that the total staffing hours on Northern will decrease from 10,793 to 4,238 hours per week under the proposals – a reduction of 61%.

Based on the consultation documents, our WMT/EMR research project took us three hours. We estimate that to have calculated the total amount of staffing hours withdrawn from these two operators would have taken an additional 20 hours, due to the way the information is concealed on their websites. To have calculated the total amount of toilet and waiting room opening hours withdrawn by these changes would have taken 30+ hours, requiring a station-by-station comparison with the National Rail Enquiries system.

We conclude, therefore, that to put the ticket office closure plans of all 13 operators into a quantified, national overview would take at least 3 weeks, and is impossible for individuals to complete within the consultation period. It is vital to point out that the Rail Delivery Group already has this information, and could provide it in just five minutes.

The Schedule 17 consultations are unlawful and invalid.

Train operator consultations are completely inaccessible to those most affected by the staffing changes; advertised only online, and by posters at stations with a website link. There are no paper copies available at stations (in standard, large-print or easy-read format), and most operators have failed to offer audio, Braille or British Sign Language versions of the consultation.

Operators have made no attempt to reach out to non-internet users, or current non-users of rail. They have also ignored the need to reach out to rail users outside their local area (for whom stations would be a destination, not a point of origin). The short 21-day time period is a key accessibility issue, while the lack of a quantified national overview implies that any Equality Impact Assessments produced by train operators are likely to breach the public sector equality duty held by the DfT.

The urgent need for EHRC intervention

As explained in our recent expert letter, the consultations betray all the key promises behind Great British Railways (GBR) – especially the need to remove all essential passenger services from the unregulated Rail Delivery Group. The DfT has also failed to launch its promised National Rail Accessibility Strategy consultation, and failed to introduce a new National Accessible Travel Policy (which was supposed to be enforced by the Office of Rail and Road).

On 5th July, the ORR intervened in the consultations, requiring all operators to prove they are in compliance with accessibility regulations by the 21st. However, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is still refusing to comment on whether it will intervene. They have now been refusing this demand for almost a year, following an ABC letter sent in August 2022, and a letter from 39 cross-party MPs last November.

Please help us by contacting the EHRC to demand their intervention in the ticket office closure plans. Please also ask your MP for their support on this demand – from Monday there will be just 4 days left until the end of the parliamentary session.

Email EHRC via: correspondence@equalityhumanrights.com

DATA SOURCES: Our WMT data is sourced from the consultation pages for each of their sub-brands West Midlands Railway (WMR) and London Northwestern Railway (LNR). The EMR data is sourced from their consultation page.

Experts call for ORR and EHRC to intervene in ticket office closures

With nationwide ticket office closures expected to launch any day, rail access experts and activists have come together to demand an emergency intervention by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) and Equality Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

On Friday evening, the ORR informed us that it “has not seen any plans or given assurances on any matter connected with [the closures].” The EHRC also confirmed that it had been excluded from these discussions despite recently meeting with the Department for Transport (DfT) about railway destaffing. Experts believe that “this alone raises serious questions about whether the DfT has been following due process regarding its public sector equality duty.” They say: “Unless the ORR acts immediately, the process will go forward without adequate equality assurances, and without the necessary retail and accessibility mitigations in place.”

Download the letter to John Larkinson, CEO of Office of Rail and Road here.

Signatories to the open letter (in alphabetical order):

Ann Bates OBE, transport access consultant and former UK government advisor on transport accessibility.

Linda Burnip, disability rights activist.

Carrie Clewes, Head of Equality and Discrimination at Ringrose Law.

Avril Coelho, Disability, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Activist.

Gareth Dennis, rail engineer, writer and co-founder of the Campaign for Level Boarding.

Matt Edwards, Transport and Healthy Streets Spokesperson for the Green Party.

Caroline Eglinton, UK Government Appointed Disability and Access Ambassador for the Rail Industry.

Bob Ellard, on behalf of the Disabled People Against Cuts Steering Group.

Sarah Gayton, Co-ordinator of the NFBUK Street Access Campaign.

Sue Groves MBE, Disability Access, Inclusion and Awareness Advisor.

Ellie Harrison, Chair of Get Glasgow Moving.

Cat Hobbs, Director of We Own It.

Andrew Hodgson, President of the National Federation of the Blind of the UK (NFBUK).

Anthony Jennings, rail accessibility advisor and co-founder of the Campaign for Level Boarding.

Sam Jennings, disability rights activist #DisabledByTheRailway.

Sarah Leadbetter, disability rights activist and campaigner at NFBUK.

Christiane Link, transport access consultant and director at Ortegalink Ltd.

Caroline Lucas MP, Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion.

Katharine Macy, Acting Chair of the Liberal Democrat Disability Association.

Jamie McCormack, disability rights activist.

Dziaer Neil, disability rights activist.

Doug Paulley, disability rights activist and researcher at kingqueen.org.uk

Paula Peters, disability rights activist.

Fran Postlethwaite, Secretary of Yorkshire and Humber National Pensioners Convention.

Peter Rayner, Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT), Fellow of the Chartered Institution of Railway Operators (CIRO), Honorary Vice President of the National Pensioners Convention (NPC) and Secretary of the NPC Transport Working Party.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP, Member of Parliament for Streatham.

Helen Rowlands, on behalf of the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People.

Jan Shortt, General Secretary of the National Pensioners Convention.

Matthew Smith, Member of the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT), former UK government advisor on transport accessibility and director at Rail Accessibility Ltd.

Chris Todd, Director, Transport Action Network.

Julian Vaughan, Chair of the Bedfordshire Rail Access Network.

Flick Williams, disability rights activist.

Emily Yates, Co-founder and researcher at Association of British Commuters.

Govia Ltd: the biggest rail corruption scandal since privatisation

According to press reports yesterday, the Department for Transport is preparing to award disgraced company Govia Ltd a new six-year contract for Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR).

It follows the publication of a £23.5 million penalty notice last week, for long-running financial malpractice on Govia’s Southeastern franchise. The fine is in addition to £64 million of taxpayers’ money falsely claimed by the company.

The penalty notice confirms at least thirteen years of institutionalised malpractice, going back to the very foundation of the franchise. Southeastern began by concealing taxpayers’ money in relation to rolling stock payments from 2007, before escalating their behaviour in relation to HS1 payments from 2014. There is evidence that this happened with the full knowledge of the company’s auditors and Govia’s directors, all of whom are also on the boards of GTR and Southeastern.

But even this damning report only tells part of the story. The fraud investigation was subject to a severe conflict of interest, being run by Govia’s owning groups, Go-Ahead and Keolis – as well as their long-standing auditors, Deloitte. The results of the investigation have been buried by the government and have been subject to no scrutiny whatsoever by any other agency. Despite rumours that the Serious Fraud Office would be investigating this potentially criminal fraud, the Go-Ahead Group commented last month that they ‘do not know’ whether this investigation has taken place.

Outrageously, the government is planning to let their favourite – and most failing – rail company off the hook once again. The penalty notice makes clear that they reduced the fine by over £6 million due to the ‘reputational damage’ to Govia after they were exposed for the history of corruption on Southeastern. Meanwhile, the fraud investigation is untrustworthy and incomplete – the real reason it was rushed out last week was to clear the way for a new six-year franchise to be awarded to their other subsidiary, Govia Thameslink Railway.

Make no mistake, the history of Govia Ltd. is the biggest rail corruption scandal since privatisation.

Govia Thameslink Railway – the UK’s least trusted train company

We have now dispatched a new legal letter, challenging the government on the chaotic history of Govia Thameslink Railway; which has been strongly condemned by Select Committees and the National Audit Office since the beginning of its tenure in 2014.

First, GTR was responsible for the ‘Southern Rail Crisis’ cancelling 7.7% of planned services between 2015 and 2017 (compared to a network-wide average of 2.8%). When the government failed to penalise them for their disastrous performance, we took the DfT to the high court, where they were ordered to impose a penalty on GTR within two weeks, or face a judicial review. Despite claiming in court that the decision was ‘imminent’ they in fact made a hasty and largely ‘verbal’ agreement with GTR for the amount of £13.4 million, to be reinvested into the franchise. £10 million of this was used to buy out their liability for performance two years into the future – meaning that the company was no longer subject to any performance benchmarks whatsoever.

As a result of being given carte blanche on their performance benchmarks, GTR’s management continued to decline, resulting in the timetable collapse of May 2018. Despite being warned of such an outcome time and time again, the DfT passed up every chance to renationalise the franchise. If they had done so, it is likely that the 2018 timetable collapse could have been prevented – and certain that its impact would have been less severe.

After GTR was found to be one of the main parties responsible for the timetable collapse, the DfT made another confidental ‘agreement’ that GTR would invest £15 million into their failing operations. Although a minor profit cap was also imposed, GTR was able to escape this 1.5 years early and benefit from at least a doubling of their profit margin due to the more favourable terms of their covid emergency agreement. To date, the DfT has never imposed a direct fine on GTR – every ‘penalty’ reported in the press has in fact been a remedial measure to be reinvested into this chronically failing franchise.

Staff shortages and long-term mismanagement persist on GTR, who are now experiencing a higher rate of professed ‘covid absences’ than any other franchise in the country. Based on their record of poor management and long-standing driver shortages, it is likely that these issues will continue for another six years if the new contract is awarded.

What’s worse is that the government is now planning to trust them with an unprecedented amount of taxpayers’ money under a new ‘National Rail Contract’. In the DfT’s own words:

“Current and future contracts for the provision of franchise services are, and will remain, highly dependent on high value money flows between the contractual parties, frequently based on complex contractual terms. Rail operators will often have more information than the DfT regarding the operations and finances of the franchise. Very substantial amounts of taxpayer monies are involved. In this context it is imperative that the SoS is able to have confidence in the behaviour of operators in the reporting and payment of any sums due to the SoS, and acting in a good faith manner with the SoS and the DfT, including in relation to any matters where there may be any uncertainty.” (Southeastern penalty notice, page 10)

With the directors and auditors of Southeastern, GTR, Govia Ltd and the Go-Ahead Group all reported to be complicit in the scandal, the only responsible decision is to ban these companies permanently from the UK railway.

Support our legal action for public ownership

Since January 2022, we have been collaborating with Bring Back British Rail on a legal action to bring Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern back into public ownership. Please support our action by donating to our legal fund here.

Fifteen years of fraud: allegations against The Go-Ahead Group have doubled in scale

Following the release of The Go-Ahead Group’s accounts last week, the company’s alleged fraud on Southeastern has reached a new level of scandal: unprecedented in the history of rail privatisation.

The alleged fraud is over twice the scale and duration than originally thought – totalling at least £51.3 million, with discrepancies going back to the foundation of Southeastern in 2006. At the time of its renationalisation in October 2021, the Department for Transport had believed the duration to be seven years; totalling £25 million between 2014-2019 (plus active deceit when further concealing this activity between 2020 and 2021).

Having now returned most of this money to the taxpayer, The Go-Ahead Group has put aside a further £30 million for an expected fine from the government. However, by the Group’s own admission, this situation is completely unprecedented and under the powers of the Railways Act 1993, the government has the power to impose a much higher penalty. A further amount of £21.3 million is subject to an ongoing ‘commercial dispute’ with the DfT, but there is no transparency about whether this is also suspected to be fraudulent.

Ultimately, it is impossible to confirm whether these figures reflect the true extent of the alleged malpractice. A fraud investigation concluded in December 2021, but has been subject to a severe conflict of interest as it was run by the owning groups themselves. According to statements from Go-Ahead’s Chief Financial Officer last week, the company “doesn’t know” whether they’ve been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office, as originally reported in September.

Not only has the government allowed Go-Ahead to run their own fraud investigation, they are now helping the company cover up its results. Earlier this month, we revealed through Freedom of Information requests that the DfT does not intend to release the report of this investigation, nor even its ‘terms and scope’. We are now challenging their position in our legal correspondence, claiming an ‘obvious, profound and unavoidable conflict of interest’ throughout the inquiry. From what we know so far, the allegations constitute at minimum a fifteen-year knowing breach of contract – and at worst a criminal fraud.

Govia Limited: a history of failure and deceit

In January 2022, we launched a joint legal campaign with Bring Back British Rail, to bring Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern services into public ownership when Govia’s contract expires at the end of March. We believe there is a strong legal argument that evidence of fraud would taint the entirety of Govia’s operations, meaning any decision by the government to award the company with a new six-year contract would be challengeable in court.

In response to our legal case, The Go-Ahead Group has said that the issues on Southeastern were “contained within a separate company – London and Southeastern Railway – and had nothing whatsoever to do with Govia Thameslink Railway.” Their claim is easily disproven.

Govia Limited is owned by The Go-Ahead Group (65%) and Keolis (35%). All of Govia’s directors are also on the boards of its subsidiaries, London and South Eastern Railway (LSER) and Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR). As majority owner, The Go-Ahead Group’s Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers hold directorship roles across all four companies.

The following table shows the directorship of LSER, GTR and Govia Ltd at the time of the discovery of the alleged fraud in March 2020. CEO David Brown and CFO Elodie Brian have since been replaced by Christian Schreyer and Gordon Boyd, respectively.

Govia Thameslink Railway has held the contract for Britain’s biggest rail franchise, TSGN, since 2014. Its record is a litany of failure, including the ‘Southern Rail Crisis’ of 2016, when it cancelled almost 60,000 trains within a year. In 2018, GTR was found to be one of the main parties responsible for the 2018 timetable collapse, which caused chaos all over the UK. Since 2021, the UK’s ‘least trusted train company’ has been subject to two class action lawsuits, alleging deceit in relation to ticketing and zoning issues. Despite having the most catastrophic history of any rail franchise in the UK, the DfT has continually rewarded GTR for its failures.

Due to life-support public subsidy for GTR and its bus operations, The Go-Ahead Group has reported increased operating profits of £115.5 million for the year; boasting that 90% of its revenue is secured through public contracts. Christian Schreyer, CEO, says The Go-Ahead Group is ‘in good shape’, with ‘constructive talks and collaborative negotiations’ on the new GTR contract currently underway.

URGENT: the GTR contract must be stopped

Since the release of The Go-Ahead Group’s 2021 accounts, the Southeastern fraud scandal has doubled in scale. Pressure on the government is now at its peak, with further decisions on the financial penalty expected any day, and a decision on the GTR contract due before the end of March.

All signs suggest the Department for Transport is attempting to cover up this scandal, and the situation could not be more urgent. Please help us by writing to your MP and the Transport Minister Grant Shapps at shappsg@parliament.uk – to condemn the cover-up, and demand that Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern is brought into public ownership at the end of March.

Our legal campaign with Bring Back British Rail is now well underway, funded entirely by passenger donations. Please donate if you can.

Department for Transport hides scandalous report on Go-Ahead fraud investigation

The Department for Transport is hiding a scandalous report that could implicate The Go-Ahead Group in an alleged seven-year fraud on their former Southeastern franchise.

It follows the renationalisation of Southeastern in October, when it returned an initial £25 million to the taxpayer. An investigation into the alleged fraud concluded in early December.

As reported in the Times last week, FOI requests from Bring Back British Rail and the Association of British Commuters reveal that the Department for Transport never intends to release this report to the public. We are now challenging their position as part of our joint legal campaign to ‘Take Back Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern’ into public ownership.

Two official legal letters have now been dispatched to the Department for Transport; demanding the publication of this controversial report. We have also warned the government that they will be open to judicial review if they award owning groups, Go-Ahead and Keolis, a further six-year contract for Govia Thameslink Railway when its contract expires at the end of March.

Legal correspondence with the Department for Transport

The first letter argues that no new contract can be awarded to Govia Thameslink Railway without full transparency and robust conclusions regarding the Southeastern fraud investigation. Based on what we know so far, our lawyers consider this to be “in the best case a serious and knowing breach of contract, but at worst a criminal fraud.”

It also presents a full history of the Govia Thameslink Railway contract, which has been widely condemned for operational mismanagement and systemic failure since it began in 2014. We are aware that the DfT is actively considering public ownership for TSGN and have demanded to know: what preparations have been made for a takeover; and whether the Department has conducted any analysis of the value of public ownership compared to renewing the contract with GTR.

The second letter provides a point-by-point rebuttal of the DfT’s responses to our recent FOI requests; in which they refuse to release the report, or even the ‘terms, scope and members’ of the investigation.

Our lawyers refer to the obvious conflict of interest behind the investigation, which was run by the owning groups themselves: “We find it extraordinary that an issue as serious and time sensitive as the determination of the veracity of allegations of fraud within a TOC have been left to the corporate owners. There is an obvious, profound and unavoidable conflict of interest.”

The letter also draws attention to comments in the press from ‘unnamed sources’ that the publicly-owned Operator of Last Resort (OLR) does not have the capacity to take over. We find this claim extremely suspicious and have asked the DfT to settle the matter by explaining in detail the preparations that have been made. We remind the government that £20 million was invested in the OLR in 2019 and that the DfT has previously confirmed these contracts are easily scalable at short notice.

How you can help

Please help by emailing your MP and demanding urgent Parliamentary questions on this matter. Despite plenty of coverage in the financial press, politicians have failed to get active on this issue, and a decision on the Govia Thameslink Railway contract is now imminent.

Donate to the Bring Back British Rail legal fund here. Your donations led to a huge success when the East Coast Main Line was brought into public ownership in 2018 – please help us do the same for TSGN.

Follow Bring Back British Rail and Association of British Commuters for updates, including our first official response from the Department for Transport – due later this week.

For further information, find a full record of the legal correspondence here, and a background to the fraud investigation here. Please direct any inquiries to info@bringbackbritishrail.org or contact@abcommuters.com

New legal campaign to take Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern into public ownership

A crowdfunded legal action launches today to take the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern rail franchise back into public ownership. Campaign group Bring Back British Rail will challenge the government’s plans to award a new six-year contract to Govia Thameslink Railway, and demand transparency over the alleged £25 million fraud by Govia subsidiary, London and Southeastern Railway.

The action is the latest stage in Bring Back British Rail’s CrowdJustice legal fund, which had its first victory in 2018 when the East Coast Main Line was brought back into public ownership as LNER. We’re pleased to be collaborating on their new case; along with our experienced team at Devonshires Solicitors, who represented our 2017 legal challenge against the Department for Transport.

Read more about Bring Back British Rail’s legal action, and please donate if you can.

Why is this action necessary?

The Southeastern rail franchise was renationalised in October, after the Department for Transport uncovered an alleged £25 million fraud by London and Southeastern Railway (LSER). Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the government is now considering awarding a new six-year contract to Govia’s other subsidiary, Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), at the end of March.

In a recent letter to the Transport Select Committee, rail minister Chris Heaton-Harris implied that LSER’s actions involved long-running and active deceit since 2014. He stated that the company ‘did not act transparently and in good faith’ and ‘concealed the money owed through financial reporting over several years’. DfT civil servants began asking questions in March 2020, but even then LSER continued to ‘minimise the risk of detection by the Department’.

Transport Minister, Grant Shapps, has stated that there is ‘clear, compelling and serious evidence’ that LSER ‘breached good faith’ with the government. And yet, the Department for Transport has allowed Govia’s owning groups, Go-Ahead and Keolis, to run the fraud investigation themselves, along with Deloitte (Go-Ahead’s external auditor since 2015). The investigation has been conducted under conditions of strict commercial confidentiality and our initial legal inquiries have found that the DfT never intends to release this report to the public.

We believe the investigation is highly compromised, and it’s clear that it has already hit the rocks. The Go-Ahead Group has now admitted to ‘serious errors’ and just had to delay their accounts for the second time this year, reportedly due to Deloitte refusing to sign them off. Meanwhile, their rail operations are hanging by a thread, with trading in shares suspended, and huge losses in Germany and Norway.

A staggering 90% of the Go-Ahead Group’s revenue is guaranteed by public contracts. They are the largest bus operator in London and operate around 11% of the UK’s regional bus market. In addition to the GTR contract renewal, the Go-Ahead Group is soon set to sign new ‘Enhanced Partnership’ bus agreements with local authorities all over the UK. After receiving bus and rail bailouts totalling hundreds of millions during the covid pandemic, it is now crucial to determine whether they can be trusted with any more public money.

What happens next?

Bring Back British Rail’s legal team will shortly begin official correspondence with the Department for Transport to demand full transparency on the Southeastern investigation, and determine the extent to which owning groups, Go-Ahead and Keolis, are implicated in the alleged fraud.

They will argue that Govia, the Go-Ahead Group and Keolis should be heavily penalised for any involvement in fraudulent activities, and that public ownership is the best solution for Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern.

In the event that a new contract is awarded to Govia Thameslink Railway, the lawyers will consider whether this can be challenged by judicial review.

Stay tuned for further updates, including the first official legal correspondence, due for publication next week.

Donate to the Bring Back British Rail legal fund here.

Stagecoach vs the DfT: will their high court battle lead to the total collapse of franchising?

Stagecoach and other operators began their high court challenge last week, claiming that the Department for Transport had mismanaged the bidding process for three different franchises: East Midlands, West Coast Intercity, and Southeastern. They’re seeking a multimillion compensation payout and a judicial review, which could result in the East Midlands and West Coast franchise awards being declared invalid.

The cause of the legal dispute is a change made by the DfT to pension liability, meaning that the government would no longer be the final guarantor of pension shortfalls. Last year, the Rail Delivery Group said the Pension Regulator had demanded “immediate and significant contributions worth £2.6bn or more.” The Pension Regulator has put the total railway pensions deficit at £7.5 billion, but recent analysis reported in the FT suggests it could be as high as £11 billion.

The court case is shrouded in commercial confidentiality. Yet the political fallout could be unprecedented, with the possibility of the West Coast (Avanti) and East Midlands (EMR) franchises being revoked; and the strong likelihood of a national rail strike if workers’ pensions are affected. Most worryingly of all, there are now rumours circulating in the rail and financial press that the Williams Rail Review will not be released, with its recommendations going straight into a government White Paper.

We’re forced to ask – can there be any credibility whatsoever in a White Paper that is being concocted under such legal pressures and perverse incentives? The rail franchising model is clearly in its death throes and we need to be more on guard than ever against the influence these toxic contractual relationships might be having in the writing of new legislation.

Week One: court update

1. Arriva settled their claim on the eve of the court case. The amount of compensation paid to the company remains confidential.

On the first day of the court case, it was announced that Arriva had settled a related claim regarding their disqualification from the East Midlands bid for refusing to take on pension liability. The claim included the fact that DfT civil servants sent details of Stagecoach’s bid to the other competitor Abellio, which eventually won the franchise as the last bidder standing. Arriva refused comment to the press, but told the court that it had agreed to a compensation settlement “on terms confidential to both parties.” Arriva was previously reported to be claiming £200 million for its exclusion from the East Midlands franchise bid.

2. Stagecoach lawyers said the Railway Pensions Scheme was a ‘basket case’ and that rail franchising is ‘in crisis’ with the DfT accepting ‘unbelievable’ bids.

Jason Coppel QC, acting for the train operators, said that bidders had been expected to take “disproportionate” risks and that the successful bidders did not say “how they would manage and pay for” the additional pension liability. He argued that the crisis in rail franchising is “because of risks which the department has required [franchises] to assume or because of over-optimistic bids which the department should not have accepted.” In regard to the unresolved issue of pension liability, he called the Railway Pensions Scheme a “basket case” and said it would require extra funding ranging from “bad to off the scale”.

3. There were new, shocking revelations about civil service conduct in the era of Chris Grayling.

Lawyers argued that the DfT was responsible for a “long series of missteps and mistakes” when it was run by Chris Grayling between July 2016 – July 2019. The most shocking revelation of all came at the beginning of the week, when Jason Coppel QC revealed to the court that civil servants had a solution to the pensions dispute that had been approved by the Treasury – but did not share this with Chris Grayling. Civil servants are due to be cross-examined in the trial, including the highest-paid civil servant: Peter Wilkinson, MD of Passenger Services at the DfT.

4. The lack of transparency and accountability was cited as a cause of the rail franchising crisis.

Jason Coppel QC went on to criticise the DfT over the amount of evidence that has been declared a commercial secret, accusing them of hiding information that was merely “embarrassing”, rather than confidential. He said that DfT culture was “highly resistant to openness and accountability” and that the combination of the broken franchising system, railway pension deficit and culture of secrecy in the DfT had been an “accident waiting to happen”.

The trial continues for a further three weeks, with a decision due later in the year. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for further updates.

The fundamental right to travel: DPTAC gives us the ONLY advice we can trust on accessibility

The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) are statutory advisors to the Department for Transport on accessibility, making them the best possible source for an expert opinion with a front row seat on policy issues. We have previously published dozens of documents detailing their opposition to driver only operation and station destaffing; in which they cite their concerns about the potential Equality and Human Rights Committee legal action on this issue.

With this in mind, we believe that the Office of Rail and Road’s new ‘Accessible Travel Policy’ contains a regulatory hole around accessibility. Their new guidance to train companies aims to reduce the advance booking period from twenty-four to two hours by 2022, but includes no obligation to spontaneous ‘turn up and go’ travel. The ORR says that staffing issues are not part of its remit, but in view of their own duty under section 149 of the Equality Act, we asked them to comment. Unfortunately, they informed us that they would only be reconsidering this issue if government, the Williams Review or ‘other regulators’ took decisions in this policy area.

But, all is not lost. In the ORR’s July submission to the Williams Review, they place a strong emphasis on the need for a whole system approach to accessibility, based on clear criteria for both funding and staffing. And the ORR has made a very clear recommendation that this ‘whole system approach’ should be led by DPTAC.

Why are the DPTAC documents so important?

DPTAC’s May 2019 submission to the Williams Review provides exactly this outline of a ‘whole system’ approach. With the ORR’s backing, it is now undoubtedly the most important document on accessibility in the entire Williams Review:

DOWNLOAD HERE

DPTAC recommends a ‘paradigm shift’ in which accessibility becomes a ‘fundamental’ part of the industry, rather then just an ‘add on’. Their May submission to the Williams Review includes a damning analysis of rail industry culture and structure; and calls for a ‘whole system’ approach that embeds accessibility ‘into the heart of what the rail industry does’. DPTAC also argues that rail vehicle accessibility legislation (TSI/RVAR) has provided a ‘relatively strong baseline’, and that there is now a strong case for new regulation with compliance deadlines for station accessibility. This would form part of a long-term funding strategy that could see the timeline to ‘full accessibility’ reduce from 100 to 40 years.

DPTAC’s May submission to the Williams Review is an essential report for all transport and disability rights campaigners and we ask for your help to spread it widely. It is important to remember that the government has set Williams’s remit to be ‘fiscally neutral’ – so it will take a great deal of campaigning and/or legal actions to get these demands over the line.

The ONLY quantified overview of rail accessibility?

The biggest theme emerging from the latest DPTAC documents is the ‘urgent’ and ‘unmet’ need for research, and the ‘dearth of detailed data’ on staffing levels in particular. They make clear that the problem is endemic, with ‘no agreed approach to quantifying the accessibility of the rail network’ and in many areas ‘a lack of quantified data on specific aspects of network accessibility.’ The state of transparency around accessibility research remains a matter of serious concern to us, with the DfT still refusing to publish the ‘wholly inadequate’ Steer report on modes of train operation following our request for an internal review of their FOI decision.

The above statistics are taken from pages 2 to 3 of DPTAC’s submission to the Williams Review and are drawn almost entirely from the 2015 report ‘On Track for 2020’. This report is considered by DPTAC to be a ‘unique’ overview – and the most up-to-date source of quantified data on rail accessibility. And yet, this report was withheld until June 2017 by the Rail Delivery Group, when we published a copy and forced its official release.

Another important point to make is that the ORR will have gone forward with the publication of their new Accessible Travel Policy (ATP) based in part on the very same Steer research on ‘modes of train operation’ that DPTAC has stated is ‘wholly inadequate’ and should only be approached with ‘extreme caution’. Earlier this week, campaigner Doug Paulley succeeded in getting the ATP sent back to the ORR for a ‘rethink’ after threatening a judicial review over the accessibility of rail replacement buses – so is there scope to go further in other areas of the guidance too? We think it’s time to question whether the ORR is using the full extent of its regulatory powers – especially in regard to the changing landscape of railway staffing.

Write to us at contact@abcommuters.com

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for further updates

Exposed AGAIN! Disabled Access cover up at the Department for Transport

It’s been exactly one year since we published documents from the Disabled Person’s Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), revealing years of cover ups inside the Department for Transport concerning driver only operation (DOO). A month ago, we repeated our FOI request and can reveal that the situation around DOO and disabled access is now at breaking point.

The latest documents show that since April this year, DPTAC has been in open rebellion against the DfT due to a ‘wholly inadequate’ piece of research: ‘Effects of modes of train operation on passengers with disabilities’ by the consultants Steer. The existence of this report has so far been concealed from the Transport Select Committee and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as well as the disability charities involved in the DfT’s ‘Inclusive Transport’ campaign.

The Steer Report – ‘Effects of modes of train operation on passengers with disabilities.’

In an outspoken letter sent to ministers on 2nd May this year, DPTAC states: ‘our headline advice is that the results of this work should be used with extreme caution […] our advice is that the research and Guidance Note fall very considerably short of articulating measures that mitigate the potentially very negative consequences of driver-only operation, when combined with unstaffed stations; a toxic combination for many disabled people that excludes them from using the rail network.’

In the letter, DPTAC challenges the legality of the DfT and train operating companies’ plans for DOO, questioning whether the running of unstaffed trains through unstaffed stations is consistent with the Department’s duties under the Equality Act 2010. The full letter to ministers can be viewed here:

DPTAC’s Letter to Ministers dated 9th April, sent 2nd May.

After Andrew Jones’ appearance at the Transport Select Committee on 8th May, DPTAC scheduled an urgent meeting with ministers and sent ahead a list of demanding questions, also concerning the legality of plans for DOO:

June 2019 emails – DPTAC arrange meeting with Transport Ministers and send urgent questions in advance.

The DPTAC documents prove us right in our ongoing pursuit of a report by the consultants Steer (formerly Steer Davies Gleave). We had previously understood a 2013 Steer report to be the foundation of the entire DOO project, meaning that this new discovery of a piece of 2018 research is part of a six year history that has so far evaded all Parliamentary scrutiny. The 2018 Steer report ‘Effects of modes of train operation on passengers with disabilities’ is yet a further stage in a process of policy development that’s been going on for years within the closed circle of the DfT, Rail Delivery Group and train operating companies.

Key documents: DPTAC’s Letter to Ministers dated 9th April, sent 2nd May * June 2019 emails – DPTAC arrange meeting with Transport Ministers and send urgent questions in advance * DPTAC’s second submission to the Williams Review – Working towards a fully accessible railway, 8th May * DPTAC’s response to the PAYG consultation, submitted 30th April 2019

The Steer Report – Timeline of Events

Background – the 2013 Steer Report

Since August 2017, we have been pursuing a 2013 Steer report known as “Driver only operation – passenger”, which we believe forms the basis of the entire DOO project. We first drew attention to the existence of this report with our publication of a 2014 email from Michael Woods of the Rail Safey and Standards Board (RSSB). However, the Steer report has been held back by the Rail Delivery Group (RDG), who are not subject to freedom of information legislation. After we broke the story two years ago, the RDG refused to release the report under FOI, giving the following comment to press:

“In 2011, an independent report into making the railway more efficient recommended that driver only operated trains should be the default option across the network. Following this, a more detailed report was commissioned to investigate the financial implications of different ways of enacting this recommendation. As a public service which spends taxpayers’ money to better connect the country, it is only right that we look at ways to make our services more efficient but it is entirely normal that such analysis remains confidential. Where it is being introduced, careful consideration is being given to ensure that a second member of staff, not necessarily a guard, is available wherever appropriate to assist passengers.”

After three years of industrial action and with a looming legal threat against the government from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, there is little need to emphasise the public interest value of the 2013 Steer report. After FOI requests to the DfT, DPTAC, RSSB and the ORR we have discovered that the document is held only by the Rail Delivery Group. This means that the private industry-led consortium has complete control and ownership over a document that we know has been foundational to policy. The fact that this document has been held back by the Rail Delivery Group for six years also provides the rail industry’s most urgent example of the need for FOI legislation to be extended to private contractors.

To date – the 2018 Steer Report

Our FOI request to DPTAC has revealed the existence of a 2018 Steer report on DOO, ‘Effects of modes of operation on passengers with disabilities’. Although we have been able to publish DPTAC’s damning verdict on its contents, the report itself has been withheld under section 22 (1) of the FOI Act – namely that the report is already ‘planned for publication’ by the Department for Transport.

However, it’s clear in the correspondence that ministers are deciding whether to publish, not when. An email from May 30th, where a DFT civil servant chastises a member of DPTAC for referring to the report at an ORR event, states that: ‘Ministers haven’t yet decided whether to share’ and ‘while some of the TOCs at the meeting today might have been aware when you raised it, the disability groups and EHRC definitely wouldn’t be.’

The DPTAC email correspondence shows the 2018 Steer Report passing through at least three ‘iterations’, a process managed by the Rail Delivery Group in collaboration with consultants Steer – and in which they have sought feedback from train operating companies ‘to ensure recommendations are feasible’. The following excerpts from February 2018 further demonstrate this unhealthy dynamic:

From DPTAC meeting minutes – 12th Feb 2019:

Our requests to the Transport Select Committee:

(1) At his 8th May update to the Transport Select Committee, the Rail Minister Andrew Jones maintained that driver only operation is ‘not policy’. This is no more than an issue of semantics, relating to a behind-the-scenes legal wrangle over who holds the Public Sector Equality Duty in franchise contracts. The documents we’ve published today show that this legal discussion is already going on behind the scenes at the DfT, who are undoubtedly preparing for a legal challenge from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We call on the Transport Select Committee to seek sight of any legal advice provided to the Department, which could potentially influence changes to legislation following the Williams Review and is therefore in urgent need of oversight.

In particular, please note:

Points 2.6 and 2.7 of the DfT and DPTAC Rail Sub-Group Meeting minutes – 12th Oct 2018:

The following paragraph from a DfT civil servant sent to a member of DPTAC on 30th December 2018.

(2) We call on the Transport Select Committee to demand all ‘iterations’ of Steer report(s) on driver only operation since 2013, and to question the Rail Delivery Group thoroughly on the report’s six year history. We will continue to request the 2018 Steer Report under FOI, but our primary concern is that documents are being withheld from the Transport Select Committee, meaning there can be no proper scrutiny of Departmental policy.

(3) We call on the Transport Select Committee to undertake an investigation into transparency and research standards at the DfT. Railway policy has been developed behind closed doors for up to a decade, and it is outrageous that this ‘research’ process appears to have been dominated by the Rail Delivery Group, the majority of whose members are train operating companies. Despite years of industrial conflict on the issue, the TSC has not even been allowed to view the business case for DOO (which we believe to be contained within the earlier 2013 Steer report).

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for further updates.

[This article was edited on 03/05/2022 to remove expired links to documents]

Category: Judicial Review