Gareth Collier Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Royal Mail deliver other companies mail, what we call DSA ( Downstream Access) at a loss, this has to be subsidised by people buying stamps to use Royal Mails service, as part of the agreement set up by Adam Crozier, RM also has to treat ALL DSA mail as first class, irrespective of the amount charged. When Yodel admitted that they were 10 days behind on deliveries for Christmas, RM had to pick it up, an extra 25000 packets a day, on top of the normal Christmas frenzy RM have to deal with, we also had to pick up extra's from DHL, UPS and TNT to ensure pre-Christmas delivery. The point we ask is that if these companies fail to live up to the promises they make, why are they not penalised for it, RM gets fined by OFFCom for every late delivery of a guaranteed delivery, it is not a level playing field by any means when you only penalise one of the players. Being a fellow postie I can confirm everything Graham has quoted above. It is a farcical situation which, if left to continue, can only result in the demise of RM. Visiting every address in the country 6 days a week is what costs the money so the competition aren't interested so this is how it pans out when a company whishes to send out a mailing: For instance Tesco asks delivery companies to quote for the business so guess who comes out cheaper? RM whom have to collect the mail, sort and then deliver it or company A that can guarantee 1st class delivery, collect it then just drop it of at the local RM mail centre to do everything else knowing that RM will make a loss as the regulator fixes the price RM can charge company A. Company A's sole cost is the driver and lorry that picked the mail up. If RM fail to deliver on time they are fined by the regulator. Other companies aren't as they don't hold the USO. Yodel could turn around before xmas and say 'we've a backlog so we aren't going to bother collecting from you until next week' as there is no regulation and they are answerable to no-one. Sure they could lose some business but all they will do is undercut everyone else in January and those business will suffer from short term memory loss and return. RM would have been hung, drawn and quartered! I was delivering a tracked parcel the other day where we are now expected to try up to 4 other neighbours if the recipient is out (having time to do this is a whole other issue). Whilst back at the original door a Hermes guy walked up the path and threw his parcel over the back gate and stuck a card through the door. I got into conversation with him having joked I'd had to try half the street. His response was that he got just 40p an item even if he had to come back the next day. The only way to earn a living wage was to deliver as many an hour as possible and as he could just leave the packet and stick a card through if the recipient was out what was the point of knocking in the first place so he never bothered! You get what you pay for and as in general the British public always want something for nothing nothing is what we will end up with! Gareth Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mod4 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Please let me add a timely reminder that discussions relating to both Politics and Religion are not allowed on this forum so please refrain from any further posts including such discussions or the thread will be locked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointstaken Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Back to the real point - what is going to happen the poor sods who have lost their jobs ? Now the rush is over, will any of them get a job, particularly with big retailers offering "Click and Collect", which presumably don't need courier services ? I'm glad I'm retired, and not out there wondering where next week's rent or mortgage payment is coming from. Dennis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Dennis Guess who delivers the click and collect, admittedly to a few address only but in bulk. And will still be busy for a few weeks. In fact click and collect will increase in volume against the normal levels earlier this year, its becoming very popular as an alternative to waiting in doors for the delivery, or collecting from the couriers hub The parcels will still be needed to delivered, so some of the jobs will be taken up by their rivals to cover the increase in work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gismorail Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 There is currently a national shortage of HGV drivers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 28, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 28, 2014 There is currently a national shortage of HGV drivers And has been so for several years - in fact for far longer than it would have taken to train them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 There is currently a national shortage of HGV drivers dont you believe it there is a shortage of hgv drivers prepared to drive for the pitifull rates on offer lots of hgv license holders are not driving as they can earn more stacking shelves in poundland with out the hassle from police vosa or management Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted December 29, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 29, 2014 The parcels will still be needed to delivered, so some of the jobs will be taken up by their rivals to cover the increase in work Not so, Australia Post are setting up parcel collection boxes at various locations. Available 24/7 http://auspost.com.au/parcels-mail/parcel-lockers.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
62613 Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 Including those who are having to undergo a change of system...and where the transition has been mismanaged by DWP?....[Whose first response is to cease payment!!] That's being generous! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alastairq Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 That's being generous! It must be the time of year? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Listening to the radio this morning about City Link it was quite disturbing, lots of people who were contractors are owed monies (in some cases its reported quite a lot), but it transpires that the venture capitol company will get if not all its investment quite a lot back before any other creditors. This seems all wrong to me and I would hope someone will look at the way the company has been run It was also asked why they pulled the plug on the company on Christmas day, the reply was that its against the law to run a company when insolvent. Well if they cannot pay their staff or contractors, let alone their suppliers it seems very strange to pull the plug straight after their busiest period when cash flow is at its highest!! The latest tonight is that the administrators have declined an offer to buy the business from another group as it undervalues the company ? it was only worth £1 a couple of years ago, so why are they declining offers to save/buy the company when they state its not worth anything? Could it be that its worth more to the administrators to liquidate the company than sell it, or am I totally misunderstanding the situation. I have always been taught 50% og something is worth more than 100% of nothing Looks like in the end the workers and tax payer will pick up the bill, whilst others seem to do quite well out of the mess. What a sad state of affairs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purley Oaks Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Perhaps the 'venture capital' company only bought the firm to allegedly asset-strip later, which may explain the reticence to sell. Slater-Walker were past-masters at asset-stripping in the 1960s - an easy way to 'make' money, and possibly beats working your life away for peanuts - if you can stand the immorality. Mal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Perhaps the 'venture capital' company only bought the firm to allegedly asset-strip later, which may explain the reticence to sell. Slater-Walker were past-masters at asset-stripping in the 1960s - an easy way to 'make' money, and possibly beats working your life away for peanuts - if you can stand the immorality. Mal Is it not up to the administrators to decide who buys what now, not the venture capital company Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Perhaps the 'venture capital' company only bought the firm to allegedly asset-strip later, which may explain the reticence to sell. Slater-Walker were past-masters at asset-stripping in the 1960s - an easy way to 'make' money, and possibly beats working your life away for peanuts - if you can stand the immorality. Mal Possibly, but at least they've provided several thousand people with paid employment for a couple of extra years in the process. City-Link clearly wasn't in the best of health when they bought it, so it's likely that it would have folded earlier than it did without the VCs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERS Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Is it not up to the administrators to decide who buys what now, not the venture capital company Not entirely true, as the owners have secured their investment against assets of the business, they're effectively in control of those and are guaranteed the value of the assets when the business is liquidated. The offer for the business would have included some/ all of those assets, seemingly at a lower price than the current owners deem them to be worth. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted December 31, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 31, 2014 Venture capitalists do not have the best image but in the case of City Link I suspect they were their last chance and as has been pointed out at the worst it has given staff another couple of years before things went tango uniform. When talking of this subject it invariably gets political and it is easy to move to an assumption that VC = bad and end up backing something worse, the classic example is the campaign to make sure Jon Moulton didn't get MG Rover. If Moulton had bought the company I believe it would have been a pretty brutal experience for the staff but he had a viable idea for reconfiguring the company I think. The rhetoric of the unions in demonising Moulton and scare mongering whilst building up the phoenix four into white knights riding in to rescue the company was shameful and not a good advertisement for unions. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 It may well have been the companies last chance, but to take it over and for it to collapse within 2 years to me seems a bit quick. Also the timing, one would have thought that this was the companies busiest trading period. This is only supposition on my part but for the first in the queue creditors it must be the best time to dissolve the company when the businesses who spend money with them, spend the most. Now the December invoices will be sent out and I guess paid but, those who put in all the hours delivering, may as in the case of contractors get nothing. Or am I misreading the situation Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 It's possible that the extra Christmas deliveries increased their outgoings without bringing enough extra money in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Pete On the basis that all of the delivery companies had so much work they struggled to deliver everything on time, don't forget the black Friday rush. I guess it was quite a profitable time for all in the retail business, including the delivery companies. Please don't forget some companies do most of their business in the run up to Christmas and that internet shopping is getting so much bigger in value, it must have been their most profitable time of the year. With labour being quite often the most expensive part of the costings, staff being paid at the end of the month and I guess self employed drivers are paid at the beginning of the following month. Outgoings may not have been increased that much And there do seem to be investors will to take the business over cant have been that bad can it. I can see after the sale on line deliveries things will go quiet, on the other hand I may be seeing something into the situation that's not there Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanders Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Also the timing, one would have thought that this was the companies busiest trading period. This is only supposition on my part but for the first in the queue creditors it must be the best time to dissolve the company when the businesses who spend money with them, spend the most. Now the December invoices will be sent out and I guess paid but, those who put in all the hours delivering, may as in the case of contractors get nothing. If your out-goings exceed your income and you have no further cash available (I.e. investment or sale of assets) then you are insolvent. The may well have had loan or tax payments due and not enough cash to cover them, for example. The fact it was December, or Christmas Day, has nothing to do with it; it's just simple maths and the timing is unfortunate. Once you are insolvent it is illegal to continue to trade; even if that's "We'll just wait a couple of days for those outstanding invoices to be paid". It's a criminal offence for a Director of an insolvent company to allow it to continue to trade. As to the administrators rejecting a bid when the company was last sold for £1, the rules are different. The job of an administrator is to get the most money for the business as possible; if that means carving it up and selling off assets, that what they must do. It is very harsh for the employees, but as the law stands the company and administrators have very little choice in the mater of how they conduct themselves. People may as well howl at the moon as complain about how things have been handled. Also the race to the bottom isn't over yet; Amazon now have their own delivery company (Amazon Logistics) which essentially consists of nothing but contractors with their own white vans, and terrible reliability to boot. The race to the bottom continues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Saunders Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Just to change the subject slightly, how many people have bothered to photograph any City Link vehicles! They will soon be the same as Red Star a memory! Mark Saunders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayfield Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 If your out-goings exceed your income and you have no further cash available (I.e. investment or sale of assets) then you are insolvent. The may well have had loan or tax payments due and not enough cash to cover them, for example. The fact it was December, or Christmas Day, has nothing to do with it; it's just simple maths and the timing is unfortunate. Once you are insolvent it is illegal to continue to trade; even if that's "We'll just wait a couple of days for those outstanding invoices to be paid". It's a criminal offence for a Director of an insolvent company to allow it to continue to trade. As to the administrators rejecting a bid when the company was last sold for £1, the rules are different. The job of an administrator is to get the most money for the business as possible; if that means carving it up and selling off assets, that what they must do. It is very harsh for the employees, but as the law stands the company and administrators have very little choice in the mater of how they conduct themselves. People may as well howl at the moon as complain about how things have been handled. Also the race to the bottom isn't over yet; Amazon now have their own delivery company (Amazon Logistics) which essentially consists of nothing but contractors with their own white vans, and terrible reliability to boot. The race to the bottom continues. Lawrence Thank you for that explanation, however the cynic in me seems to lead me into thinking that this must have been the situation for some time. Now if by keeping the the company going through its busiest period so that it reduces the amount its creditors lost, could seem to be a noble action. However if the main beneficiary of this action is the venture capital company its self at the expense of its workers (both employees and sub contracting drivers), then to me this seems wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanders Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Lawrence Thank you for that explanation, however the cynic in me seems to lead me into thinking that this must have been the situation for some time. Now if by keeping the the company going through its busiest period so that it reduces the amount its creditors lost, could seem to be a noble action. However if the main beneficiary of this action is the venture capital company its self at the expense of its workers (both employees and sub contracting drivers), then to me this seems wrong. Thanks, but it's Vanders, or Kristian. Laurence Hill is the name of my layout If it was the case for "some time" the Directors would all be criminally liable for trading while insolvent. It's much more likely that they knew they had certain financial obligations at the end of December and were banking on the Christmas rush to bring in enough money, and it simply didn't. At that point they knew the business was insolvent and quite correctly called in the receivers. The main beneficiary will be the creditors; there is a strictly defined hierarchy of who gets their money in what order. That's why the receivers have a legal obligation to maximize the amount of money they can get for the business; they're obliged to pay back as many people as much money as possible. There's some useful FAQ's available that give more information on what happens when a company enters recievership; you can see the types of creditors and it's worth pointing out that shareholders are at the bottom of the pile of who gets money. In most cases it's rare for any money to be available after the other creditors are paid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold martin_wynne Posted January 1, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 1, 2015 It's much more likely that they knew they had certain financial obligations at the end of December Rents and insurances for land and premises are often due on the old Quarter Days: Lady Day (25 March) Midsummer Day (24 June) Michaelmas Day (29 September) Christmas Day (25 December) So it is common for a business to declare itself insolvent on the day before a quarter day. These are very old dates in English law and it's interesting that they are close to the equinoxes and solstices. I've no idea if any of this is relevant to City Link. Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Saunders Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I was talking to a friend who receives most of his spares via assorted couriers and it seems that over the past twelve months that their has been a major drop in useage of City Link by several companies! Mark Saunders Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.