The[Railtrack] Independent Station Access Conditions (1996 Edition)


This Page was Last Updated on 29th January 2010


98              Apportionment of costs


Rule, clause or Condition


Date of Hearing

Points made within Determination  (Verbatim extracts given in Italics, or between quotes)



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)



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.


27.1.     ...

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]