What is the relationship between Govia and the Department for Transport?

In September, the Department for Transport, Permanent Secretary, Philip Rutnam (philip.rutnam@dft.gsi.gov.uk), awarded a rail franchise to Govia, the parent company of Southern Trains and Southeastern Trains. There was an outcry about this, not least because Govia – registered head office a solicitor’s office in Newcastle so you can’t actually report them to, for example, Trading Standards – is running the worst performing rail companies as seen in Passenger Focus’s annual reports. The DfT did not justify the decision and even the DfT apparently stated that Govia would have to improve its service – but having given the franchise away to them, and having admitted that it does nothing to audit or regulate Govia – how empty was that statement! So despite knowing that the service was abysmal, the DfT just gave the franchise to their apparently favourite company, Govia.

The franchise is itself a win for Govia – there are no financial risks as the Government, that is you and me, take all those. Govia just gets a management fee for running the worst service possible. Secondly, according to the Sunday Times, 24 July 2016, Peter Wilkinson who manages the franchise for the Department for Transport worked as a consultant for Govia to win the franchise. He is now employed at £260k a year to manage the franchise. The Sunday Times says there is ” . . no conflict of interest . .”  So the man who helped win the franchise – and who has suggested that he can break the rail unions by forcing them back to work – is running the contract with Govia that he helped to win for Govia and he has defended Govia in front of the Transport Committee, even though the service is now at virtual meltdown.

How come the DfT has this sort of relationship with Govia? Govia, after all, runs IPFAS, the so called independent penalty fares appeals service, that is supposed to be independent of the rail companies and seen to be independent of the rail companies’ commercial interests – with the blessing of the DfT. How does the DfT justify that? Mainly it pretends that it is nothing to do with the DfT (not true), then it says that IPFAS is run as an “arm’s length subsidiary” (not true) separate business unit (not true), that the DfT audits and regulates IPFAS (it doesn’t – and doesn’t even know how many appeals are lodged let alone successful), that it is confident that all appeals are heard properly (when it knows that my appeal was mis-handled, for example, and does nothing to check), that proper discretion is applied (it isn’t – and the DfT doesn’t even follow up when it is told discretion rules have not been applied). The DfT has recently in a letter to me from Nick Bisson, then Director of Rail Policy (nick.bisson@dft.gsi.gov.uk) – after nearly two years of demanding an answer – admitted that every time an appeal is turned down Govia and its executives, including Charles Horton and David Brown, all benefit financially. (Mr Bisson’s justification for allowing this is that compared with the billions of pounds spent on the railways, this isn’t a significant amount, but of course this doesn’t help the people who appeal and lose because of the cosy relationship.) But there is another twist. If an appeal is allowed – apparently very rarely, with the blessing of Mr Rutnam, Govia can charge a so-called “administration fee” up to the value of the the penalty fare. Heads Govia wins, the citizen loses; tails Govia wins, the citizen loses – and every time each of the most senior people in Govia personally are richer with the blessing of the DfT.

In short, the DfT goes out of its way to protect Govia from scrutiny. Peter Wilkinson at the same meeting of the Transport Committee, 20 July 2016, said that the Govia management could not interfere in the running of IPFAS – as though the two were separate. It is all part of the protection of Govia. There is no separate management of IPFAS – it is managed by the Govia management directly for their own commercial and financial benefit. Such a statement from a former paid consultant of Govia is scandalous.

When Southern Trains, then MD, Chris Burchall, supplied misleading photographs showing a different train with completely different features from the one my son sat in to “prove” that my son should not have made a mistake, the DfT acknowledged that the photographs were of a different train, but did nothing and refused to do anything, on the grounds that it didn’t think that Passenger Focus had been misled! What? So as long as Passenger Focus isn’t misled (which it actually was and I have the emails to prove it), then Southern Trains and Govia can pretend as much a they like and send false information to mislead the DfT and the public. (By the way, showing the cheek of Govia and Southern, even they only said that the photographs were representative of a train – and then the DfT leant over backwards to take Govia’s side.)

When I asked to see the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Clare Perry, I was refused twice – presumably because they were worried that I would expose the cosy relationship that appears to exist between Govia and the DfT, and also the falsehoods that the DfT had continually given me over the years. If the DfT has nothing to hide, why did it move heaven and earth to prevent me seeing the Minister? If the relationship with Govia would survive scrutiny, why don’t they allow that scrutiny?

So what is the relationship between Govia and the DfT – and should I wonder what sort of reward will result?  Is the fact that David Brown, CEO of Govia, used to run surface trasnsport in London and is therefore an ex-colleague of senior people at the DfT and Cabinet Office relevant to this? David Brown received some £3.5m as his reward for running Govia – when Southern was only fined £2m for its appalling failures.

Am I reading too much into this protection of the company from scrutiny, even when the DfT then fails to meet its legal, statutory and regulatory duties? Is there an innocent explanation for the way that the DfT uses obfuscation, misleading statements, and downright untruths to protect Govia? Is it self-interest on the part of the DfT – because it knows that to expose Govia’s wrong doings will be to expose the DfT as having completely failed to conduct itself properly. Is the abuse I have suffered – still going on as it promised that I would not have to deal with Jeremy Hotchkiss, the man who has admitted deliberately not replying to my specific complaints and answering “in general terms” – really the result of a well-run department, with ethical people at its head? Or does the DfT have too much to hide? Does the abuse I have suffered justify Mr Rutnam staying in office?

Is there any way of exposing this situation – or is the DfT right in telling me that they hold all the cards and I can do nothing to interfere with the way they behave? Apparently not.