OFT probe under fire
Page 12
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Many operators accused of running anti-competitive practices and of illegal fare-fixing schemes have called the claims unreasonable and uninformed.
Since the announcement last week by the OFT (CM 17-23 November), several operators have already sought legal advice from the Bus and Coash Council. The BCC says: "Members are surprised and concerned over this."
Oxford Motor Services' operations director David Beaman says OMS has received a letter from the OFT concerning two of its routes — a joint route in Reading run with Beeline and its 290 route, operated in conjunction with London County North West.
He says: "Both agreements are long-standing. We fix timetables and fares together because each route is basically run as a single route. It would be an operational nightmare if we each had to run the services separately. OMS would be sending its vehicles miles away to places where the other companies had depots. We also joined together to provide the public with the best possible service.
"We charge the same fares and accept each others return tickets. That is not conspiracy," he maintains.
Thomas Knowles, managing director for Lancaster City Transport says his firm was "astonished" when it heard from the OFT. He says: "Our OFT letter relates to a summer, Saturday-only service run with Lothian Regional Transport. This provides a holiday service from Edinburgh to Morecambe and Blackpool. We need to run the routes jointly because of drivers' hours regulations.
"The service has been running for more than six years and was registered to compete against a Scottish Bus Group operation. If we have to drop this summer services, the route will be a near monopoly for the SBG."
National Express has also shown its concern over the accusations. Network manager Jim Cressey says: "We are very concerned over the OFT statement. It is judging the situation before it has properly investigated it. If the OFT looks into these 'anticompetitive' agreements, we think it will be pleasantly surprised to find the majority of them are not against customer interest nor anti-competitive."