PPP Contracts

SCHEDULE 4 - Fault Attribution Procedures

1. Fault attribution

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This paragraph 1 details the procedures by which fault attribution is made and agreed by both LUL and the Infracos.

1.1.2 The list of attributable parties at the Transfer Date is set out ( for interest purposes only ) in Part E of Schedule 5 ( Potential Fault Attributees ).

1.2 Initial Attribution

1.2.1 In this paragraph 1.2, each Incident is assessed by an Attributer and an initial attribution assigned ( Initial Attribution ). The Attributer for each Incident type is shown in Part F of Schedule 5 ( Fault Attribution Process Requirements ).

1.2.2 On a daily basis, the Attributer shall review all Incidents added to CuPID. The nominated LUL Attributer shall assess all Service Disruptions caused by Asset Failure, Defect, non-performance, and non-availability. The nominated Infraco Attributer shall assess all Facilities Incidents. The Initial Attribution of Facilities Incidents may be recorded in the FRC Database by the nominated Infraco Attributer. Where Initial Attributions are so recorded, they shall be supplied to LUL in accordance with paragraph 6.13 of Schedule 3 of this Performance Measurement Code ( Reporting Procedures ).

1.2.3 Where multiple Disruptions arise from the same Incident, the Attributer shall select one or more to be the Primary Disruption(s) to be used in NACHs calculations and mark it as such in CuPID. Where an Incident causes a single Disruption only, then the sole Disruption shall be the Primary Disruption.

1.2.4 Primary Disruptions must be selected such that each Primary Disruption is directly caused by the Incident and not as consequence of any other Disruption. Where more than one Disruption arises from the impact of an Incident, then multiple Primary Disruptions may be selected.

1.2.4A Where a Train is rendered not Available or defective as a direct result of on Train errors, misuse or abuse by a Customer or any other external party thus resulting in a Train Delay and a subsequent Train Withdrawal, only the Train Withdrawal shall be identified as a Primary Disruption under the fault attribution rules as set out in paragraph 2 ( Fault Attribution Rules ) below.

1.2.5 Notwithstanding paragraphs 1.2.3, 1.2.4 and 1.2.4A above, Disruptions identified as "Consequential Incident" or "Causal Incident" in accordance with paragraph 2.8 of Schedule 3 ( Reporting Procedures ) shall be deemed to be Primary Disruptions for the purpose of NACHs calculations.

1.2.6 Where the Attributer concludes an Asset defect to be a No defect Found ( as identified in paragraph 2.3 ( No defect Found ) ), this shall be recorded in CuPID or the FRC Database, as applicable.

1.2.7 The Attributer shall assign an attributable party to each Incident in accordance with the fault attribution rules as set out in paragraph 2 ( Fault Attribution Rules ) below.

1.2.8 In the event of a Partial Station Closure, the Attributer shall also assign a Partial Station Closure category to indicate the extent of the Disruption. These categories are set out in paragraph 4.4.6 of Section Two of this Performance Measurement Code.

1.2.9 Where the Incident data are deemed to be insufficient to perform the Initial Attribution, the Attributer: (a) may request a copy of the Incident Reporting Form ( IRF ), if one has been completed for the Incident; and

(b) should collect supplementary Incident information to enable an informed Initial Attribution to be made.

1.2.10 Where supplementary data has been collected in accordance with paragraph 1.2.9 above, the Attributer shall enter the details in the supplementary information field within CuPID.

1.2.11 Where Infraco is required to investigate and carry out necessary work or corrective action in accordance with the procedures set out in Schedule 3 ( Reporting Procedures ) and the Actual Notification Time for such work or corrective action is longer than the Reasonable Notification Time as specified in Part D of Schedule 5 ( Reasonable Notification Times ), then the Reasonable Notification Time shall be used in the calculation of NACHs values and recorded in CuPID. However, where the Failure of an Infraco communications asset has extended the Actual Notification Time beyond the Reasonable Notification Time as set out in Part D of Schedule 5, then the Actual Notification Time shall be used in the calculation of NACHs values and recorded in CuPID. Where LUL has resolved an Asset Defect or Failure without Infraco involvement, then neither the Actual Notification Time nor the Reasonable Notification Time shall apply.

1.2.12 Subject to paragraph 1.2.13 below, the Attributer shall use all reasonable endeavours to attribute each Incident within five (5) Business Days of the Incident being Closed-out and in any event all Initial Attribution shall be completed within eight (8) Business Days of the Incident being Closed-out ( the Initial Attribution Period ).

1.2.13 Where the Attributer has not been able to obtain the necessary information to make the Initial Attribution for an Incident within eight (8) Business Days of the Incident being Closed-out, then the Attributer may extend the Initial Attribution Period for that Incident provided the Attributer gives the Reviewer a date by which the Initial Attribution shall be made.

1.2.14 In respect of paragraphs 1.2.12 and 1.2.13 above, for an Incident resulting in Lift Downtime, Escalator Downtime, Customer Conveyor Downtime as well as Facilities Faults not attributed in the FRC Database, the Closed-out date and time for Initial Attribution purposes shall be deemed to be when the record is uploaded into CuPID.

1.2.15 Incidents not logged within the fault attribution process within the Initial Attribution Period cannot subsequently be attributed to another party and will be deemed to be attributed to the party who should have undertaken the Initial Attribution in accordance with paragraph 1.2.2.

1.3 Review of Initial Attribution

1.3.1 In this paragraph 1.3, each Incident is reviewed by the Reviewer and a decision made as to whether the Initial Attribution is agreed. The Reviewer for each Incident type is shown in Part F of Schedule 5 ( Fault Attribution Process Requirements ).

1.3.2 On a daily basis, the Reviewer shall review those Incidents attributed by the Attributer to the Reviewer as they are received. The Reviewer may undertake its own investigations into any Incidents that, in its opinion, are incorrectly attributed.

1.3.3 Where the information supplied to the Reviewer in CuPID, including any supplementary information collected by the Attributer in accordance with paragraph 1.2.8 and 1.2.9 above, is deemed to be insufficient, the Reviewer:

(a) may request a copy of the Incident Reporting Form ( IRF ), if one has been completed for the Incident; and

(b) shall collect further information regarding the Incident to enable an informed review of the Initial Attribution to be made.

1.3.4 Where supplementary information has been collected in accordance with paragraph 1.3.2 above, the Reviewer shall enter the details in the supplementary information field within CuPID.

1.3.5 Where new data available to the Reviewer conclude an Asset Defect to be a No defect Found in accordance with paragraph 2.2 below, this shall be recorded in CuPID.

1.3.6 Subject to paragraph 1.3.7 below, the Reviewer shall use all reasonable endeavours to review each Incident attributed to its organisation within two (2) Business Days of the Initial Attribution, and in any event all reviews shall be completed within five (5) Business Days of the Initial Attribution ( the Attribution Review Period ).

1.3.7 Subject to paragraphs 1.3.10 and 1.4.11 below, where the Reviewer has not been able to obtain the necessary information to conduct a review of the Initial Attribution for an Incident within five (5) Business Days of the Initial Attribution, then the Reviewer may request an extension to the Attribution Review Period for that Incident provided the Reviewer gives the Attributer a date by which the review shall be performed.

1.3.8 In respect of paragraphs 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 above, for Facilities Faults, where the Initial Attribution was done in the FRC database, the Initial Attribution should be deemed to have been done on the date when the record is uploaded into the CuPID.

1.3.9 During any investigations, the Reviewer may contact appropriate LUL Staff or Infraco Staff. LUL and Infraco shall provide reasonable assistance to enable investigations to be carried out efficiently. If the Reviewer requires access to any Incident Reporting Forms ( IRFs ), LUL shall make the relevant papers available within one (1) Business Day but, while investigations are underway, the Reviewer shall not assign a status to that Incident until those investigations have concluded.

1.3.10 If, after investigation, the Reviewer considers an Incident to be wrongly attributed or Incident details to be incorrect, the Reviewer may raise a formal objection. Every Incident shall be assigned a status depending on whether: (a) the Reviewer agrees with Initial Attribution and Incident details ( Attribution Agreed ); or

(b) Reviewer disagrees with Initial Attribution and/or Incident details ( Attribution Disagreed ).

1.3.11 Subject to paragraphs 1.4.8 and 1.4.9 below any Incident where the Reviewer has not notified the Attributer of the status of Attribution Agreed or Attribution Disagreed within the Attribution Review Period shall be deemed as "Attribution Agreed by Default".

1.3.12 Any objections to Initial Attributions or to Incident details must be raised by the end of the Attribution Review Period or, where paragraph 1.3.7 applies, within the agreed extension to the Attribution Review Period. The Reviewer's reasons for objection must be recorded in CuPID and the Reviewer's Attribution given.

1.3.13 After the Attribution Review Period or, where paragraph 1.3.7 applies, within the agreed extension to the Attribution Review Period, the Attributer shall assess any objection made pursuant to paragraph 1.3.10 above and the Reviewer's reasons for such objection. Where the Attributer agrees with the objection, the Incident shall be reclassified as Attribution Agreed and the Attribution changed accordingly.

1.4 Attribution Resolution Meetings

1.4.1 This paragraph 1.4 sets out the process by which the attribution of disputed Incidents shall be resolved. After each meeting outlined below ( an Attribution Resolution Meeting ), either Infraco or LUL may escalate an Incident to the next level of meeting after reasonable consideration. Neither LUL nor Infraco may delay the fault attribution process unreasonably.

1.4.2 Prior to the level A attribution resolution meeting ( the Level A Meeting ) outlined in paragraph 1.4.6 below, LUL shall produce a Schedule ( the Incident Attribution Schedule ) ( in accordance with paragraph 1.3.9 above ) listing all Incidents with a status of Attribution Disagreed and Attribution Agreed by Default ( in accordance with paragraph 1.3.9 above ) since the previous Level A Meeting together with their Initial Attribution. Where, at the time of the Level A Meeting, Incidents are still being assessed or reviewed in accordance with the Initial Attribution Period or the Attribution Review Period, a status of "attribution pending" shall be assigned ( Attribution Period ). Attribution Pending Incidents shall be included in the Incident Attribution Schedule for reference.

1.4.3 During the Attribution Resolution Meetings, the Attributer shall produce relevant evidence for the attribution of all Incidents to which the Reviewer has Disagreed and the Reviewer shall provide sufficient evidence to prove that this attribution is incorrect.

1.4.4 Prior to each Attribution Resolution Meeting, both Infraco and LUL may gather new evidence or commission new investigations either with or without the agreement of the other party.

1.4.5 Following each Attribution Resolution Meeting, with the agreement of both Infraco and LUL:

(a) an Incident may be referred to the next meeting at the same level instead of being escalated; or

(b) new evidence can be commissioned

1.4.6 On a weekly basis or as otherwise agreed by both LUL and Infraco, a Level A Meeting shall be held. This meeting shall take place on the second Monday after the end of the relevant week or as otherwise agreed by both LUL and Infraco. LUL shall be represented by the LUL Level A representative. Infraco shall be represented by the Infraco Level A representative.

1.4.7 During the Level A Meeting all Incidents on the Incident Attribution Schedule shall be discussed.

1.4.8 In the event that the attribution of any Incident remains unresolved after the Level A Meeting, the dispute shall be referred to the Level B Attribution Resolution Meeting ( the Level B Meeting ). At the Level B Meeting, Incidents with an unresolved status shall be discussed. Subject to paragraph 1.5.4 below, the Level B representatives may discuss and change the status of any Incidents which have been allocated a status of Attribution Agreed or have been deemed to have a status of Attribution Agreed at the Level A Meeting. This shall take place within the regular Level B Meeting or as otherwise agreed by both LUL and Infraco. LUL shall be represented by the LUL Level B Train representative and/or Level B Stations representative. Infraco shall be represented by the Infraco Level B Manager. At this Level B Meeting the parties may determine that Joint Attribution may be made in respect of an Incident in accordance with paragraph 2.5 below.

1.4.9 In the event that the attribution of any Incident remains unresolved after the Level B Meeting, the dispute shall be referred to the meeting of the Contract Managers ( the Contract Managers Meeting ). At the Contract Managers Meeting, Incidents with an unresolved status shall be discussed. Subject to paragraph 1.5.4 below, the Contract Managers may discuss and change the status of any Incidents which have been allocated a status of Attribution Agreed or have been deemed to have a status of Attribution Agreed at the Level B Meeting. This meeting shall take place every four (4) weeks or as otherwise agreed by both LUL and Infraco. LUL shall be represented by the LUL Contract Manager and Infraco shall be represented by the Infraco Contract Manager. At this Contract Managers Meeting, the parties may determine that Joint Attribution may be made in respect of an Incident in accordance with paragraph 2.5 below.

1.4.10 In the event that the attribution of any Incident remains unresolved after the Contract Managers Meeting, the dispute shall be referred to the dispute procedure set out in the Dispute Resolution Agreement where it may be determined that Joint Attribution may be made in respect of any Incident in accordance with paragraph 2.5 below.

1.4.11 In the event that any Incident Attribution remains unresolved within three (3) months of the Incident being Closed-out and the Asset being returned to service, the dispute shall be referred in accordance with the dispute procedure set out in the Dispute Resolution Agreement.

1.5 Completion of Attribution

1.5.1 At any stage during the process set out in paragraphs 1.2 to 1.4 above, where both LUL and Infraco are agreed on the attribution for an Incident, the Incident can be reclassified as Attribution Agreed. CuPID shall be updated with the status of Attribution Agreed and any changes of details. Where the nominated Infraco Attributor makes an Initial Attribution of a Facilities Incident and attributes the Incident to Infraco the status of the Incident shall be deemed to be Attribution Agreed.

1.5.2 The Lost Customer Hour impact of an Incident will be calculated in the period in which the Incident is Closed-out, irrespective of when the Attribution is agreed by both parties.

1.5.3 Notwithstanding paragraph 1.5.2 above, for Incidents causing Disruptions that span Payment Period end, the NACHs values calculated shall be accrued to the Payment Period in which the Disruption was Closed-out. In the event of an extended Speed Restriction lasting for a duration longer than a Payment Period, NACHs values will be calculated and accrued on a Payment Period by Payment Period basis by Closing-out the Disruption at Payment Period end and re-opening the Disruption immediately thereafter provided it continues to exist.

1.5.4 Four (4) weeks after the end of a Payment Period or at the time of payment calculation, all Incidents with an Attribution Agreed status shall be binding and shall not be changed.

2. Fault Attribution Rules

2.1 General Rules

2.1.1 All Incidents affecting Assets which are the responsibility of Infraco under the applicable PPP Contract and any other Incidents occurring on the Underground Network, including Service Disruptions as a direct result of actions or omissions by Infraco Staff and Infraco sub-contractors in carrying out their duties shall be attributed to Infraco.

2.1.1A Service Disruption, as a result of Customer action which does not result in an Asset being rendered defective or not Available, shall not be attributable to Infraco.

2.1.2 Notwithstanding paragraph 2.1.1 above, but subject to paragraph 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5 and 2.1.6 below, no part of any Incident due to the circumstances set out in (a) to (q) below shall be attributed to Infraco provided that on becoming aware of such Incident, Infraco shall commence and continue to make all reasonable endeavours to rectify the Incident or Disruption caused by that Incident:

(a) an Asset is rendered not Available or defective or a service is interrupted as a result of an LUL Breach;

(b) an Asset is used by LUL Staff outside its operating or design parameters;

(c) an Asset is rendered defective from errors, misuse or abuse by:

(i) LUL Staff;

(ii) LUL contractors ( for example through PFI Contractors );

(d) an Asset is rendered not Available or defective from errors, misuse or abuse by a Customer or other individual present on the Underground Network and acting without the authority of LUL, as a direct result of an LUL failure to meet its obligations or as a direct result of the suicide or attempted suicide of a Customer or other external party;

(e) an Asset fails or is rendered not Available or defective or Service is interrupted or suspended, caused by the Failure of equipment or an interruption in the supply of power or other utility services for which Infraco is not responsible;

(f) a Service is disrupted as a result of LUL decisions to withdraw an Asset for any reason except a Failure pending investigation instigated by or at the request of LUL;

(g) a Service is interrupted or suspended as a result or consequence of a Successful Title Claim;

(h) a Service is interrupted or suspended as a result of the enforcement of such Relevant Third Party Right or Access Objection in circumstances where paragraphs 3.3.1, 3.3.2 or 3.3.3 of Part I of Schedule 1.5 of the PPP Contract ( Property Provisions and Documentation ) provides that this sub-paragraph should apply;

(i) a Service is interrupted or suspended or an Asset is rendered not Available or defective as a result of an act or omission of any third party or of any National Network Party, not covered by paragraph 2.1.2(d) above, ( other than Infraco's own sub-contractors ) including any other Infraco ( except to the extent that the other Infraco is acting as one of Infraco's sub-contractors ) and that other Infraco's sub-contractors or as a result of default under the PFI Contracts;

(j) a Service is interrupted or suspended or an Asset is rendered not Available or defective as a result of a Remedial Action to the extent that the parties have agreed or it has been determined in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Agreement that LUL is liable for the Environmental Harm giving rise to such Remedial Action;

(k) a Service is interrupted or suspended as a result of an Enforcement Action in circumstances where paragraphs 3.5 or 3.6 of Part I of Schedule 1.5 ( Property Provisions and Documentation ) of the PPP Contract apply;

(l) a Service is interrupted or suspended or an Asset is rendered not Available or defective as a result of a Force Majeure Event;

(m) a Service is interrupted or suspended or an Asset is rendered not Available or defective as a result of a Covered Risk other than a Covered Risk which is also a Force Majeure Event provided that this provision shall be deemed to apply notwithstanding that the Asset concerned is an Asset owned or belonging to another Infraco.

(n) a Service is interrupted or suspended or an Asset is rendered not Available or defective as a result of Infraco being prevented from using the Existing Key IPRs;

(o) a Service is interrupted or suspended or an Asset is rendered not Available or defective as a result of Water Table Damage;

(p) a Service is interrupted or suspended as a result or consequence of Heritage Rolling Stock being run; and

(q) a Service is interrupted or suspended or an Asset is rendered not Available or defective as a result of a breach by a CTRL Contractor of its obligations pursuant to a CTRL Construction Contract or a breach by a CTRL Consultant of its obligations pursuant to a CTRL Consultant Contract.

2.1.3 If Infraco fails to respond to, all and any damage howsoever caused to the Infraco Network expeditiously and in accordance with Good Industry Practice so as to restore the Services and repair, renew and enhance the Assets so as to comply with the requirements of the Contract as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances then, from the time of such failure to be responsible or to respond, any continued delay shall be attributable to Infraco.

2.1.4 The circumstances described in paragraph 2.1.2 ( f ) above, shall only apply until such time as the investigation of such Asset is completed and the results notified to Infraco.

2.1.5 In the circumstances described in paragraphs 2.1.2( m ) and ( q ) above, the first forty eight (48) hours of any Incident shall be attributable to Infraco.

2.1.6 Where the circumstances described in 2.1.2( l ) are caused by the Failure of any Asset, the Incident shall be attributable to Infraco unless Infraco has been using all reasonable endeavours to comply with its Asset management obligations in relation to Condition Benchmarks and/or Residual Life Benchmarks relating to such Asset or the type of Asset as the same are set out in Schedule 3 ( Asset Management ) to the PPP Contract.

2.1.7 In the circumstances described in paragraph 2.1.2( n ) above, reasonable endeavours to rectify the Incident or Disruption shall include procuring appropriate replacement rights.

2.1.7A In the circumstances described in paragraph 2.1.2(g) and (h) above reasonable endeavours to rectify the Incident or Disruption shall, if required by LUL, include the acquisition of appropriate replacement property or property rights to replace those rendered unavailable for Infraco's use by the relevant Successful Title Claim, Access Objection or Relevant Third Party Right in the event of which ( save where they conflict with the provisions of paragraphs 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of Schedule 1.5 ( Property Provisions ) the provisions of section 2 of the Property Code shall apply mutatis mutandis in respect of the acquisition of such replacement property or property right.

2.1.8 Notwithstanding paragraph 2.1.1, the rules described in paragraphs 2.2 to 2.6 below shall apply to:

(a) Fault Attribution for Booked Access Incidents ( as set out in paragraph 2.2 below ):

(b) No defect Found Asset Failures or Defects ( as set out in paragraph 2.3 below );

(c) Consequential Incidents ( as set out in paragraph 2.4 below );

(d) Joint Attribution ( as set out in paragraph 2.5 below ); and

(e) LUL Notification Times ( as set out in paragraph 2.6 below ).

2.1.9 Where a Lift, escalator or Customer conveyor is subject to a Closure booked under the Access Code, and a Lift, escalator or Customer Conveyor in the same group or bank is subject to a Failure, Defect or Suspension, attributable to Infraco, during the Closure, the Lost Customer Hours resulting from the Failure, Defect or Suspension will be calculated in accordance with paragraph 4.6.5 of Section Two of this Performance Measurement Code ( Performance Measurement ), the interruption or suspension of the service resulting from the Closure shall be attributable to Infraco.

2.1.10 Where for the execution of planned track works and not as a result of a track defect or fault the applicable Standard requires a Speed Restriction to be established for an agreed period of time, the resultant Disruption shall not be attributed to Infraco. If the Speed Restriction remains in effect beyond the agreed period of time or is stricter than the Speed Restriction established by the applicable Standard, the incremental Service Disruption shall be attributable to Infraco.

2.1.11 Where pursuant to provisions of Schedule 3 ( Inter-Infraco Asset Obligations ) or Schedule 4 ( Line Control Rooms ) of the Inter-Infraco Assets and Facilities Agreement one Infraco acts as agent or trustee for another Infraco, then for the purposes of these fault Attribution rules any such actions shall be treated as the actions of the agent or trustee, and not attributed to the principal or beneficiary.

2.2 Fault Attribution for Booked Access Incidents

2.2.1 Where a Service is interrupted or suspended as a result of a Closure booked under the Access Code, this will be attributable to the Infraco that booked the Booked Access.

2.2.2 Any such Service Disruption incident will be flagged as a "Booked Access" incident as part of the fault Attribution process in CuPID and the relevant FRC Database.

2.2.3 Where a Service Disruption incident has been flagged as a "Booked Access" incident, the Lost Customer Hours will not accrue to the Infraco as part of the calculation of the Availability score as per sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of Section 2 of the Performance Measurement Code.

2.3 No defect Found (NdF) Asset Failures or Defect

2.3.1 During the course of repairs, Asset testing and investigations, Infraco shall take reasonable actions to identify and rectify Asset Defects. However, in certain cases Infraco may not be able to replicate or confirm a Defect ( No defect Found ( NdF ) ). In such cases, Infraco Staff shall notify LUL.

2.3.2 The NdF status shall be recorded in CuPID or the FRC Database, as applicable.

2.3.3 Service Disruptions resulting from Asset Defects classed as NdFs shall be attributable to Infraco.

2.3.4 Notwithstanding 2.3.3 above, where a Service Disruption resulting from Asset Defects classified as NdF is subsequently discovered to have been as a result of a LUL Staff or LUL contractor operational error, this will not be attributable to Infraco.

2.3.5 Any Facilities Fault where the Facility, as set out in paragraph 3.9 of Schedule 2.1, is subsequently discovered to have been Available in accordance with paragraphs 1.3, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 or 2.2 of Schedule 2.1 ( Service Outputs ) of the PPP Contract shall not be attributable to Infraco.

2.3.6 Where a Fault Rectification call has been made to the FRC regarding a Failure or Defect of an Asset in accordance with Schedule 3 of the Performance Measurement Code, and it is subsequently discovered that the Asset was made Available in accordance with paragraphs 1.3, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 or 2.2 of Schedule 2.1 ( Service Outputs ) of the PPP Contract, Infraco shall not be allocated Service Points as a result of the Defect or Failure.

2.3.7

The parties shall in good faith meet to determine the number of NdFs attributable to each party or to otherwise resolve the issue via a jointly agreed plan if during any one Payment Period: (a) the proportion of Service Disruption Incidents attributed to Infraco classed as NdFs ( %NdFs ) is greater than the trigger level:

Infraco	Current Performance ( % NdFs )	Trigger = 1.25 x Current Performance ( % NdFs )
BCV	9.7%	12.1%
JNP	9.5%	11.8%
SSL	10.2%	12.7%

or,

(b) the proportion of Facilities Defects and Failures on the Infraco Network classed as NdFs ( %NdFs ) is greater than the trigger level:

Infraco	Current Performance ( % NdFs )	Trigger = 1.25 x Current Performance ( % NdFs )
BCV	11.9%	14.8%
JNP	13.5%	16.9%
SSL	11.4%	14.3%

or,

(c) the proportion of Fault Rectification Faults ( %NdFs ) on the Infraco Network classed as NdFs is greater than the trigger level:

Infraco	Current Performance ( % NdFs )	Trigger = 1.25 x Current Performance ( % NdFs )
BCV	15.3%	19.2%
JNP	11.0%	13.8%
SSL	7.5%	9.4%

2.3.8 Notwithstanding 2.3.7 above, if at any time either Infraco or LUL consider that the number of NdFs experienced in any Payment Period is out of proportion with their reasonable expectations, either party may so notify the other in writing and, upon receipt of such notice, the parties shall in good faith meet to determine the number of NdFs attributable to each party or to otherwise resolve the issue via a jointly agreed plan.

2.3.9 If, following any meeting pursuant to paragraph 2.3.7 or 2.3.8, the parties are unable to agree the number of NdFs attributable to each party, or otherwise to resolve the issue via a jointly agreed plan, either party may refer the issue of what proportion of NdFs above the level of current performance ( as shown in paragraph 2.3.7 ) have arisen for reasons not attributable to Infraco ( leaving out of account the general rule that NdFs are attributable to Infraco ) for resolution in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Agreement. The proportion of NdFs that is agreed or determined to have arisen for reasons not attributable to Infraco, shall not be attributed to Infraco for the purposes of this Performance Measurement Code.

2.4 Consequential Incidents

2.4.1 The terms "Consequential Incident" and "Causal Incident" are defined in paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9 of Schedule 3 ( Reporting Procedures ).

2.4.2 Where all the Causal Incidents are attributed to the same Infraco, then the Consequential Incident shall also be attributed to the Infraco.

2.4.3 Where the Causal Incidents are attributed in any part to LUL or at least one other Infraco, then the Consequential Incident shall not be attributable to any of the Infracos involved.

2.5 Joint Attribution

2.5.1 Where the Attribution cannot be made wholly to a single party, then Joint Attribution to two or more parties may be permitted.

2.5.2 Joint Attribution shall not be permitted during the Initial Attribution Period ( set out in paragraph 1.2 ), the Attribution Review Period ( set out in paragraph 1.3 ) or a Level A Meeting ( set out in paragraphs 1.4.1 to 1.4.7 ). Any Incident for which Joint Attribution shall be considered must first be escalated to a Level B Meeting ( as set out in paragraphs 1.4.8 to 1.4.9 ).

2.5.3 Joint Attribution is only permitted for Disruptions with a value of one thousand ( 1,000 ) Lost Customer Hours or more.

2.5.4 Attribution may be allocated to the involved parties in any combination of units of ten per cent. ( 10% ) which add up to one hundred per cent. ( 100% ) in accordance with the relative degree to which each party involved contributed to the delay.

2.6 LUL Notification Times

2.6.1 When determining the NACHs value of a Disruption, for the purposes of calculating the Disruption Time, a Reasonable Notification Time shall be used subject to paragraph 1.2.11 of this Schedule. The Reasonable Notification Time for each type of Disruption, Defect or Failure is listed in Part D of Schedule 5 ( Reasonable Notification Times ).

2.6.2 In addition, the following times shall be measured for each Disruption, Defect or Failure:

(a) The Actual Notification Time; and

(b) The Actual Fix Time.

2.6.3 The Reasonable Notification Time as specified in Part D of Schedule 5 ( Reasonable Notification Times ) shall be added to the Actual Fix Time to derive the Disruption Time, except for instances as specified by paragraph 1.2.11 of this Schedule. This Disruption Time shall be used in calculating NACHs values.

2.6.4 LUL shall make reasonable endeavours to notify Infraco as soon as reasonably practicable, subject only to any safety and operational constraints ( Actual Notification Time ). Where Infraco believes that the Disruption Time has been exacerbated as a result of the time taken by LUL to notify, then Infraco may register the Incident as Attribution Disagreed and the Incident shall be treated as Attribution Disagreed in the Review of Initial Attribution specified in paragraph 1.3.

PPP Contracts

Navigation

Elsewhere on tfl.gov.uk