This Page was Last Updated on 29th
January 2010
Rule, clause or Condition
|
Determination |
Date of Hearing |
Points made within Determination (Verbatim
extracts given in Italics, or between “quotes”)
|
98.1 |
AD14 |
January 1998 |
“4
The Committee
therefore considered whether the staff costs for 1995/6 fell to be
apportioned between Qualifying Expenditure and non Qualifying Expenditure.
The Committee’s view was that there was a requirement in ISAC(96) 98.1 for
such an apportionment of costs to be undertaken. 5.
Furthermore the
Committee opined that the fact that this Condition 98.1 related to costs and
not charges, and that ISAC(96) 35 made provision for adjustments for excess
or short payments, both implied that the critical apportionment was that
which had to be undertaken at the conclusion of the financial year and which
underpinned the content of the Certificates supplied in accordance with
ISAC(96) 34.1”. (AD14) |
98.1 |
ADP35,36 and 38 |
September 2009 |
“The Panel therefore determines the three
questions put to it as follows: 26. “Can TOCs claim a re-assessment of QX/non
QX splits which Network Rail believes in good faith to already have been agreed?” 26.1. It is not
sufficient for either party to believe that a QX/non-QX split has been
agreed; it is necessary to be able to demonstrate through a documented audit
trail that any such agreement has been reached, including the withdrawal of
any reserving of positions, in accordance with the procedures and timescales
prescribed within RISAC; 26.2. where such a
proposition can be demonstrated, the scope for re-opening is limited only to
such circumstances (if any) as are contemplated within RISAC; 26.3. the RISAC processes are currently subject
to an annual re-cycle; it follows that this places on the parties the
obligation positively to re-assert those arrangements that they wish should
carry over to a following year. 27. … 27.1.
... 28.
Should the split applied by Network Rail of 95%
QX/5% non-QX in respect of staff costs for 2006/7 be revised for each of the
Relevant Stations (as defined in the Claimants' submission dated 4 September
2009) to
reflect the actual split of activities? If so, should Network Rail assess at
its own cost the actual split for each Relevant Station, with such splits
either being agreed with the Claimants or, in the absence of agreement,
determined by an expert? 28.1.
Subject to 26.1 and 26.2 above, if the Govia TOCs
consider that 28.1.1.
there are demonstrable grounds as why the QX/non-QX
split for 2006/7 was not correct, and 28.1.2.
there is evident latitude in the RISAC provisions
for a fresh evaluation to be undertaken, then 28.1.3.
the Govia TOCs are entitled to initiate an exercise
to gather, at their expense, such evidence as might support a case that the
actual duties undertaken by staff in 2006/7 should reasonably be translated
into some other split; 28.2.
to the extent that the carrying out of such an
exercise will inevitably involve the collaboration of Network Rail, all
possible outcomes (including that where staff costs for 2006/7 should be
allocated 100% to QX) should be agreed as admissible from the start; 28.3.
the results of analysis are not of themselves
conclusive proof either way: they are
at best evidence upon which to seek to base a better agreement. ” [ADP35,36 and 38] |