Hulley's of Baslow

[Teapot42]

With respect, you're making excuses for Hulleys, DCC won't be going to the trouble and expense of retendering work for no reason.

Maybe, but it's also the case that this sort of thing affects other operators and you don't get people scrutinising the data to quite the same level.

If Hulleys are not in a position to deliver the service they are contracted to, why should the customers suffer?

FWIW, I agree with you to a degree - although I also think there has been a bit of a coordinated effort to make it seem worse than it actually is. However, taking all the contracts off them in one go is very much likely to affect the viability of the company going forwards. A more proactive approach would have been to re-tender one or two of the routes earlier than this, then if there was no improvement to carry on with the rest. They've consistently shown they can deliver roughly 2-3 buses less than they need to. Taking somewhere between 6 and 9 buses worth of work off them seems unnecessary. (There still isn't clarity on whether the 257 is included in the re-tendering process, but my understanding is that it is)

My big fear is that 'punishing' them in the way DCC have is very likely to bring the whole operation down, meaning uncertainly, disruption and likely higher cost to the council in the longer term. There is also a very human element that a lot of people seem to forget. There are people behind the scenes working incredibly hard to put out the best service they can, and who are faced with a very difficult situation mentally as they don't know if they'll have a job next week never mind next year, and their efforts are being questioned at every turn.

 

[Trainman40083]

With respect, you're making excuses for Hulleys, DCC won't be going to the trouble and expense of retendering work for no reason.

Yes roadworks can't be helped, but having a rag-tag fleet of buses averaging over 10 years old with the exception of the two Evoras will lead to breakdowns and general unreliability...

If Hulleys are not in a position to deliver the service they are contracted to, why should the customers suffer?

I'd have thought the buses being used are a sign of the revenue the routes give. If you have buses full of fare paying passengers, you make profit. If you have few, you make break event. There sure isn't money for new buses

 

[mangad]

Maybe, but it's also the case that this sort of thing affects other operators and you don't get people scrutinising the data to quite the same level.

FWIW, I agree with you to a degree - although I also think there has been a bit of a coordinated effort to make it seem worse than it actually is. However, taking all the contracts off them in one go is very much likely to affect the viability of the company going forwards. A more proactive approach would have been to re-tender one or two of the routes earlier than this, then if there was no improvement to carry on with the rest. They've consistently shown they can deliver roughly 2-3 buses less than they need to. Taking somewhere between 6 and 9 buses worth of work off them seems unnecessary. (There still isn't clarity on whether the 257 is included in the re-tendering process, but my understanding is that it is)

It was stated somewhere above that the services they lost were bundled together in a single contract. Now I don't know of a way to confirm that but it makes sense. Far cheaper easier for everyone to have one contract for four routes. And when you have contracts and a public body like a council, you absolutely HAVE to do this stuff by the book. No debates, no arguments, you do this stuff by the book. And unless the contract is written in such a way that allows an unbundling, they're not likely to make major changes to it.

Doesn't matter if this drives Hulley to the wall. Doesn't matter if they can manage services with 2-3 less buses. It's completely and utterly irrelevant. This is public money being spent. And because of that there are very strict rules on contracts and how it is spent.

And if one of Hulleys competitors thought for one minute that Hulleys were getting special treatment, and that it was unfair to them, then they would not be happy.

My big fear is that 'punishing' them in the way DCC have is very likely to bring the whole operation down, meaning uncertainly, disruption and likely higher cost to the council in the longer term. There is also a very human element that a lot of people seem to forget. There are people behind the scenes working incredibly hard to put out the best service they can, and who are faced with a very difficult situation mentally as they don't know if they'll have a job next week never mind next year, and their efforts are being questioned at every turn.

It's punishing them yes. It's punishing them for not upholding a contract Hulleys have signed. No buts, no arguments, end of. If Hulleys thought they were being treated unfairly or harshly, you can get they'd be getting the lawyers involved.

And lets' not forget that there's two organisations involved. Reality is that Hulleys haven't (so far) come out of this kicking and screaming over this. An operator who thought they were being treated unfairly probably would. And that says something.

 

[SLC001]

Given that the TC is poking his or her nose around Hulleys, I would imagine drivers will be following the rules very closely especially in regards to vehicle defects. I know that some bus companies are asking drivers to exceed their driving hours for the convenience of the company but as one driver put it, if I got caught the bus company would be the first to take disciplinary action against me. Likewise with Hulleys, with an aging fleet, defects are more likely and the pressure will be on drivers to bend the rules. As for driving hours, delays due to road works and tight schedules may well result in drivers refusing to continue journeys, and I for one cannot blame them.
It's all very, very sad but I do wonder who can take on DCC work and do it better. Not that I am suggesting Hulleys keep the work...

 

[markymark2000]

although I also think there has been a bit of a coordinated effort to make it seem worse than it actually is. However, taking all the contracts off them in one go is very much likely to affect the viability of the company going forwards.

Hulleys bid for and took on contracts which says 'you will deliver this contract, for £x cost'. Hulleys have failed to stick to their part in the contract. So rightfully, the contract was removed. Not even just in the context of buses but, how can anyone sit back and defend a company who has consistently failed to adhere to their contract with a public authority. It's business and it's common sense. If either party doesn't stick to their end of the contract, contract goes. If these were contracts with a private business for a work shuttle or something like that, their contract would have been ripped up a long time ago. If anything, they are lucky it is council contracts and the council seem to have cut them so much slack!

It's not good crying now about whether it will affect the viability of the operation. Hulleys should have thought about that beforehand when they consistently failed to deliver on contracts that they signed.

There is also a very human element that a lot of people seem to forget.

How much taxpayers money should keep being spent on any contract which consistently isn't delivered (or at least isn't delivered to such a standard that it should be), just because we should support the staff on the ground at the business? This isn't how the world works.
Businesses going under is never nice, but at least in Hulleys instance, most of the issues seem to be self inflicted, and it shouldn't be down to taxpayers to keep the, seemingly failing business afloat.
And who knows, if another operator can be encouraged to start local service work (ie Andrews) maybe staff will find alternative employment at better employers where their skills can be made better use of.

 

[mayneway]

A more proactive approach would have been to re-tender one or two of the routes earlier than this, then if there was no improvement to carry on with the rest. They've consistently shown they can deliver roughly 2-3 buses less than they need to. Taking somewhere between 6 and 9 buses worth of work off them seems unnecessary. (There still isn't clarity on whether the 257 is included in the re-tendering process, but my understanding is that it is)

I don’t comment much on this thread but read it with interest.
Imagine DCC takes 2 maybe 3 contracts off Hulley’s to ‘ease the burden’ and then less than 6 months later they have their licence revoked or simply cease trading. DCC is left with egg on their face for not acting when it was clear what was going to happen.

The excuses for Hulley’s are laughable and it’s good to see DCC doing something about it.

 

[Teapot42]

It was stated somewhere above that the services they lost were bundled together in a single contract.

This was later refuted by someone with extremely detailed and in-depth knowledge of everything to do with Hulleys. There also have been changes to some of the individual routes, so at least some flexibility is possible.

Doesn't matter if this drives Hulley to the wall. Doesn't matter if they can manage services with 2-3 less buses. It's completely and utterly irrelevant. This is public money being spent.

But that's my very point. Considerably more public money will have to be spent to cover Hulleys services, especially if that's in terms of emergency tenders. DCC were far too passive over this for far too long, and have now swung massively the other way. Being proactive sooner could well have nipped the situation in the bud.

 

[MotCO]

Businesses going under is never nice, but at least in Hulleys instance, most of the issues seem to be self inflicted, and it shouldn't be down to taxpayers to keep the, seemingly failing business afloat.

I don't know whether the issues were self inflicted, but there may be a number of factors which increased costs since the contracts were signed, outwith the control of the company and unforeseeable - for example, higher fuel prices, recruitment difficulties for drivers and maintenance staff leading to the use of more expensive agency staff, trying to offset rising costs by using older, less reliable vehicles. We have seen some of this in London where a number of TfL contracts were handed back early - maybe the same factors apply here. The question is why didn't Hulleys hand back contracts early - maybe the contracts didn't allow it, or Hulleys felt the loss of those contracts could have undermined the whole business. The truth is we will likely never know the whole picture.

 

[Teapot42]

The truth is we will likely never know the whole picture.

The picture is also very nuanced. What one person will call self-inflicted, the next will see as an attempt to get the best return out of limited resources for example.

While I don't know the inner workings of the company, what I've seen and heard suggest a certain degree of stubbornness isn't helping the situation. However, I have no doubt the desire within the company is to provide a good quality service for as many people as they can, they've just had a few setbacks and have struggled to find the best path through them. I'm not going to deny there are problems, or that they could have done things better, but I also don't think they have taken on contracts they knew they couldn't handle or without the intention to honour them.

In another world the 80 would have gone straight to tender rather than being run commercially for several months longer. Whether the final outcome is costing the council more you can't be sure of. The Sunday 257 over Snake Pass and up Winnats wouldn't have been attempted. You can go on.

 

[AWK]

Given that the TC is poking his or her nose around Hulleys, I would imagine drivers will be following the rules very closely especially in regards to vehicle defects.

Which is how it should be. Doesn't excuse running through timing points 7 minutes early though!

I know that some bus companies are asking drivers to exceed their driving hours for the convenience of the company but as one driver put it, if I got caught the bus company would be the first to take disciplinary action against me. Likewise with Hulleys, with an aging fleet, defects are more likely and the pressure will be on drivers to bend the rules. As for driving hours, delays due to road works and tight schedules may well result in drivers refusing to continue journeys, and I for one cannot blame them.

Agree with all the above. But any such instances - unrealistic schedules, drivers being asked to do the impossible etc - probably explains why the Transport Manager (who is also the owner) was called to a Public Inquiry to assess their competence and repute.

It's all very, very sad but I do wonder who can take on DCC work and do it better. Not that I am suggesting Hulleys keep the work...

That's up to the new operators to worry about, but not a reason for DCC to not take the action they have. I think the Council have been very patient and given the operator time and opportunity to sort things out but you can only be patient for so long when it's taxpayer money which is already under significant pressures

The picture is also very nuanced. What one person will call self-inflicted, the next will see as an attempt to get the best return out of limited resources for example.

I'm afraid anyone with a little industry knowledge will recognise this is largely self inflicted. The Breezer timetable, the Snake X57 being launched during a pandemic lock down, the X1 that was tagged to the X57 for 1 day, dropping commercial mileage to get 4 lease vehicles off the books...

While I don't know the inner workings of the company, what I've seen and heard suggest a certain degree of stubbornness isn't helping the situation. However, I have no doubt the desire within the company is to provide a good quality service for as many people as they can, they've just had a few setbacks and have struggled to find the best path through them. I'm not going to deny there are problems, or that they could have done things better, but I also don't think they have taken on contracts they knew they couldn't handle or without the intention to honour them.

There comes a time where ambition outweighs talent. Knowing when to stop and take a step back seems to be the thing that is missing here.

In another world the 80 would have gone straight to tender rather than being run commercially for several months longer. Whether the final outcome is costing the council more you can't be sure of. The Sunday 257 over Snake Pass and up Winnats wouldn't have been attempted. You can go on.

Same as the Breezer, they wanted to run it so jumped in with both feet so another operator didn't get it. Same result...

 

[ALEMASTER]

Hulleys don't seem to have fully recovered after Covid and in the last year or so seem to have collapsed into a bit of a shambles, possibly trying to run things on much too tight resource - not enough fleet or staff to allow for any operational contingency. I don't think they deserve to fail though, they could easily be good again, it just feels like there are good people that are getting ground down by it all.

With those 4 tendered routes removed hopefully Hulleys will have the resource to focus on running the rest of the network well and developing the patronage and timetable on those routes. The likes of the 170 and 257 have plenty of potential - run them reliably day in day out, build up passenger numbers, improve the timetable as numbers grow - the feel good should start returning.

 

[liamf656]

Hulleys don't seem to have fully recovered after Covid and in the last year or so seem to have collapsed into a bit of a shambles, possibly trying to run things on much too tight resource - not enough fleet or staff to allow for any operational contingency. I don't think they deserve to fail though, they could easily be good again, it just feels like there are good people that are getting ground down by it all.

Whilst I partly agree that COVID hit them hard, I don't think the sheer unprofessionalism is a result of that. To fall short on even the basics like customer service, or running a bus to its timetable and route (without skipping entire villages and running up to 10 minutes early), is a result of the mismanagement that's been going on since 2021

 

[Flange Squeal]

There is also a very human element that a lot of people seem to forget. There are people behind the scenes working incredibly hard to put out the best service they can, and who are faced with a very difficult situation mentally as they don't know if they'll have a job next week never mind next year, and their efforts are being questioned at every turn.

There is also a very human element to passengers who have been - and continue to be - unable to get to where they need to go, including potentially their own workplaces, due to their bus not turning up for some time now. If a company accepts public money to provide a service to the public, then regularly fail to provide said service leaving said public at the side of the road with no information (can see only one service update since 28th February on their Facebook, on 6th March?), then frankly the people have a right to question the actions of those running that company - particularly when the company aren't being open and communicating with them!

Of course no one wants to see a long standing independent company fail and people lose their jobs, but at the same time people can't keep being left at the side of the road with zero information, and then still be expected to think positively about them and hope nothing gets done. It gives the impression the company holds its passengers in contempt, which is hardly going to garner respect.

 

[mayneway]

Whilst I partly agree that COVID hit them hard, I don't think the sheer unprofessionalism is a result of that. To fall short on even the basics like customer service, or running a bus to its timetable and route (without skipping entire villages and running up to 10 minutes early), is a result of the mismanagement that's been going on since 2021

Got to agree with you.
While they were running the 257 through into Manchester the attitude of the person replying to complaints on social media on behalf of Hulley’s was shocking.
Very easy way to deal with unhappy customers/passengers is simply to say sorry. Yet they constantly made out other factors were to blame.
Even blaming drivers that had gone off sick with Covid.
Zero apathy from them and it shows.

 

[Pyewipecarshed]

Hulleys don't seem to have fully recovered after Covid and in the last year or so seem to have collapsed into a bit of a shambles, possibly trying to run things on much too tight resource - not enough fleet or staff to allow for any operational contingency. I don't think they deserve to fail though, they could easily be good again, it just feels like there are good people that are getting ground down by it all.

With those 4 tendered routes removed hopefully Hulleys will have the resource to focus on running the rest of the network well and developing the patronage and timetable on those routes. The likes of the 170 and 257 have plenty of potential - run them reliably day in day out, build up passenger numbers, improve the timetable as numbers grow - the feel good should start returning.

On the face of it being able to put scarce vehicles and drivers onto the commercial services to make them run reliably is a good thing. But as others have said the key will be if they can make enough money to keep going without the tendered work.
I don't think COVID affected them as much as the bizarre decisions... such as the purchase of Go Coach. I get wanting to buy a company with a decent workshop, but to purchase one 200 miles away seems stupid! If a bus needs repair driving or towing it that distance makes little sense, but with the age of some of Hulleys fleet the drive back from Kent to Baslow could probably finish them off!! I don't wonder it didn't work out.

 

[ALEMASTER]

On the face of it being able to put scarce vehicles and drivers onto the commercial services to make them run reliably is a good thing. But as others have said the key will be if they can make enough money to keep going without the tendered work.
I don't think COVID affected them as much as the bizarre decisions... such as the purchase of Go Coach. I get wanting to buy a company with a decent workshop, but to purchase one 200 miles away seems stupid! If a bus needs repair driving or towing it that distance makes little sense, but with the age of some of Hulleys fleet the drive back from Kent to Baslow could probably finish them off!! I don't wonder it didn't work out.

Is that all their tendered work that is going? I'm assuming aside from the 4 routes being retendered some of the school services are contracted as are some evening and Sunday services.

 

[AWK]

Is that all their tendered work that is going? I'm assuming aside from the 4 routes being retendered some of the school services are contracted as are some evening and Sunday services.

They don't have any schools specific services.

It is all their "regular" tendered routes. They get some bits of funding through another source - BSIP - to prove evening/Sunday trips on the 55 and 170 which aren't commercially viable, all other mileage on those services is commercial, but the 63, 110/111, 172 and 173 services they are losing are all contracted mileage

Hulleys don't seem to have fully recovered after Covid and in the last year or so seem to have collapsed into a bit of a shambles, possibly trying to run things on much too tight resource - not enough fleet or staff to allow for any operational contingency. I don't think they deserve to fail though, they could easily be good again, it just feels like there are good people that are getting ground down by it all.

COVID certainly played a part, as it did for many independent bus and coach operators but many recovered. Hulleys seemed to bounce out of Covid in to some strange commercial ventures, went through a phase of buying vehicles, painting them and then selling them a couple of months later and took out several loans per the trade press. I think the latter is more the reason why Hulleys are in the position they are rather than the pandemic.

 

[Steve440]

They don't have any schools specific services.

It is all their "regular" tendered routes. They get some bits of funding through another source - BSIP - to prove evening/Sunday trips on the 55 and 170 which aren't commercially viable, all other mileage on those services is commercial, but the 63, 110/111, 172 and 173 services they are losing are all contracted mileage


COVID certainly played a part, as it did for many independent bus and coach operators but many recovered. Hulleys seemed to bounce out of Covid in to some strange commercial ventures, went through a phase of buying vehicles, painting them and then selling them a couple of months later and took out several loans per the trade press. I think the latter is more the reason why Hulleys are in the position they are rather than the pandemic.

This isn't good really is it?

6 - YJ09 OTH

Optare Solo

bustimes.org

 

[mayneway]

I don’t think Covid effecting them as badly as people think. The government were propping up bus services with lots of financial aid, in fact many within the industry suggested the launch and extensions of the 257 further and further into Manchester during a time when many were avoiding public transport was brave - but when they are being heavily funded to controls running commercial services it didn’t matter if it carried fresh air or not.
Once the funding was reduced then stopped suddenly the service was scaled back through ‘lack of use’.

My honest thoughts are that it comes across as being run by an enthusiast who loves the idea of a yard full of buses with heritage liveries but actually has very little idea of how to sustain a good business.

 

[Russel]

My honest thoughts are that it comes across as being run by an enthusiast who loves the idea of a yard full of buses with heritage liveries but actually has very little idea of how to sustain a good business.

I've mentioned this on here somewhere before, but Hulleys multiple heritage liveries always looked unprofessional to me, though I've never been too enthusiastic about painting modern buses into heritage liveries, very rarely does it look good.

 

[robertclark125]

I don't often comment on this thread, but I will say this. Dcc are customers of Hulleys. They've awarded a contract to then, to do a job. That job isn't being done properly, so DCC have decided to take their business elsewhere. It's like if you take a car to a garage for repair work, but you later find they didn't do it properly, then next time your car needs a service, you go elsewhere. Same thing with DCC.

 

[Trainman40083]

I've mentioned this on here somewhere before, but Hulleys multiple heritage liveries always looked unprofessional to me, though I've never been too enthusiastic about painting modern buses into heritage liveries, very rarely does it look good.

Conversely I thought they looked great. And I used the buses to catch up with them.

I don’t think Covid effecting them as badly as people think. The government were propping up bus services with lots of financial aid, in fact many within the industry suggested the launch and extensions of the 257 further and further into Manchester during a time when many were avoiding public transport was brave - but when they are being heavily funded to controls running commercial services it didn’t matter if it carried fresh air or not.
Once the funding was reduced then stopped suddenly the service was scaled back through ‘lack of use’.

My honest thoughts are that it comes across as being run by an enthusiast who loves the idea of a yard full of buses with heritage liveries but actually has very little idea of how to sustain a good business.

When you say COVID didn't affect them that much (same with other operators)... Post COVID, in most places less people were using public transport -or using it differently. Did low fares bring in extra passengers, or the same passengers more frequently. When the £3 fare ends, will passenger numbers drop? Will they get back to what they were in 2019. I bet the gap between revenue and costs has changed for the worse.

 

[Teapot42]

This isn't good really is it?

6 - YJ09 OTH

Optare Solo

bustimes.org

Seems to be dropping time on the run out to Middleton. Unfortunately they often have issues with poor parking at Youlgreave. (Indeed I've seen times when getting a car though can be a challenge)

If the services are initially going to be re-tendered to the same timetable then I can't see how timekeeping will necessarily improve. Short of whoever gets the tenders having a spare on standby in Bakewell all day. Once they are reworked it should get better.

If the council adopted and enforced parking controls better it might also help, however having had experience trying to get this done locally, I was told they'd only do anything in the event of a serious accident.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

This isn't good really is it?

6 - YJ09 OTH

Optare Solo

bustimes.org

In what respect? Judging by previous tracking data the use of elderly Solos on this (school) journey appears quite normal. Said data also illustrates a variety of outcomes. Some journeys track perfectly well and the timetable is maintained. Others have gaps in the tracking though the timings do not suggest any shortcuts being taken. More concerning are journeys which set off 15-20 minutes late and of course do not regain any time.

In more general terms I think the problem for Hulleys is simply that time has passed them by and their established ways of doing things just don't work any more. Covid has been mentioned upthread: I wonder whether WFH has reduced their peak hour revenue leaving them with a higher proportion of ENCTS reimbursement. And it doesn't help that the Peak District National Park Planning Authority has such an incredibly conservative attitude to infrastructure improvements so almost no chance of bus priority measures in key locations to aid timekeeping or genuine attempts to meaningfully restrict car traffic.

If Hulleys does fail I think it highly likely that not all the current network of services will survive. Rural bus services are in a serious long-term decline in this country and as such it's hardly surprising if operators with an overwhelmingly rural network are also having major difficulties.

 

[Killingworth]

My honest thoughts are that it comes across as being run by an enthusiast who loves the idea of a yard full of buses with heritage liveries but actually has very little idea of how to sustain a good business.

Planning and operating timetables, costings and personnel management all seem to be weaknesses and they go back several years, coincidentally about the time of Covid. They are apparently now compounded by the ill health of the proprietor. It's a vicious circle.

Baslow is not an ideal place to be able to find new drivers, or any good new staff. It's a lightly populated area. A good reputation is hard to earn and difficult to recover once lost. The current difficulties are very well known in the local area.

Everyone would love to see a smart and efficiently run bus operator, but above all users want to know their already infrequent bus service turns up as timetabled every day, whoever operates it.

Hopefully DCC's action may help to achieve that but rural bus routes are incredibly hard to run without great dedication of all involved.

 

[mayneway]

Baslow is not an ideal place to be able to find new drivers, or any good new staff. It's a lightly populated area. A good reputation is hard to earn and difficult to recover once lost. The current difficulties are very well known in the local area.

They will always find new drivers If they offered realistic hourly rates.
I work for an op in Manchester and we have drivers who come from West Yorkshire and St Helens daily because of the good rates of pay.
I remember seeing posts from Hulley’s on drivers pages on Facebook and they seemed to be written with a bit of arrogance.

Rubbish hourly rates but a generous bonus if you work 6 days instead of 5 every week - just pay a better rate!

Conversely I thought they looked great. And I used the buses to catch up with them.


When you say COVID didn't affect them that much (same with other operators)... Post COVID, in most places less people were using public transport -or using it differently. Did low fares bring in extra passengers, or the same passengers more frequently. When the £3 fare ends, will passenger numbers drop? Will they get back to what they were in 2019. I bet the gap between revenue and costs has changed for the worse.

I drove in Manchester throughout Covid and then post Covid. Yes there was a lull when lockdown eased but as soon as the flat fares kicked in passenger numbers returned to very near normal.

 

[Killingworth]

They will always find new drivers If they offered realistic hourly rates.
I work for an op in Manchester and we have drivers who come from West Yorkshire and St Helens daily because of the good rates of pay.
I remember seeing posts from Hulley’s on drivers pages on Facebook and they seemed to be written with a bit of arrogance.

Rubbish hourly rates but a generous bonus if you work 6 days instead of 5 every week - just pay a better rate!


I drove in Manchester throughout Covid and then post Covid. Yes there was a lull when lockdown eased but as soon as the flat fares kicked in passenger numbers returned to very near normal.

But that's a big part of the problem. Low morale and then too little income to cover costs, particularly to pay better rates.

 

[mayneway]

But that's a big part of the problem. Low morale and then too little income to cover costs, particularly to pay better rates.

But we can only assume there was little income to pay better rates??

Not being funny but I’m told the main man likes his holidays…….. hardly someone who’s business is on the Breadline!

 

[tram21]

Let's just say this.

If you have tomorrow or Monday free to go and ride Hulleys, I probably would.

 

[Killingworth]

But we can only assume there was little income to pay better rates??

Not being funny but I’m told the main man likes his holidays…….. hardly someone who’s business is on the Breadline!

Believe me, that doesn't follow at all. A business may be going down the pan even when the proprietor throws money around like there's no tomorrow. There's nothing more true than "a fool and their money are soon parted" Where the main man got his money we can't know; there are many possibilities like inheritance, lottery win, profits drawn from another business or maybe remortgaged his home. He bought this business with significant assets but we don't know how much he paid for it or how much extra capital he's put into it - neither can we confirm if he's taken anything out.

Football clubs attract enthusiastic investors who get their fingers burned like this, as do owners of historic railway and transport items, possibly including operators of buses.

If the owner can afford holidays that's one thing, but can they afford the time away from management? Forget drivers for a second, are there enough competent people to manage all aspects of the operation when he's away? That may include during sickness absences.

However it's quite possible to run a business from anywhere in the world - if you can trust competent managers and operative staff.