Council tree felling...

Sorry, but this is just absurd. It's a 25 year contract, with the intention being that Amey will resurface most streets within the first 5 years. Are you claiming that there aren't any clauses in the contract which would in some way financially disadvantage Amey if, for example, they delayed starting any resurfacing until year 20?

 

Or that there are aren't any other clauses imposing certain obligations and deadlines on one or other of the parties, which might lead to wrangling about who was at fault, and possibly even manoeuvering behind the scenes to make the other side appear more at fault?

 

PS that random "case law quote" was in fact the Supreme Court's definitive attempt to review and revise (and as it happens, overturn) the whole last 100 year's worth of penalty-clause case law.

No it’s absurd to state that either party can purposefully deliver their obligations late and then benefit from their own breach in failing to deliver.

Of course parties will put forward argument as to who is at fault - but the original point in post 43 was that amey were purposefully delaying the works so they benefit commercially.

The case law in 2015 does not mean that penalty clauses were drafted into a contract executed 3years previously- that would be odd wouldn’t it?

---------- Post added 17-12-2017 at 22:49 ----------

Depends who is doing the accounting , and who is paying for the losses incurred

No - it doesn’t at all.

No it’s absurd to state that either party can purposefully deliver their obligations late and then benefit from their own breach in failing to deliver.

Since all the financial parts of the contract have been redacted, we don't know what Amey and SCC have signed up to. It's perfectly possible that Amey have found a loophole in the contract which means, for example, that if they do certain things required of them, they can be found to have fulfilled their obligations, even while deliberately missing the main target: thus switching the financial burden onto SCC. Or it may not. Who knows?

Oh stop it . Cant you see that Amey have well and truly had the councils pants down

Since all the financial parts of the contract have been redacted, we don't know what Amey and SCC have signed up to. It's perfectly possible that Amey have found a loophole in the contract which means, for example, that if they do certain things required of them, they can be found to have fulfilled their obligations, even while deliberately missing the main target: thus switching the financial burden onto SCC. Or it may not. Who knows?

Hmmm - if you like......

---------- Post added 17-12-2017 at 23:23 ----------

Oh stop it . Cant you see that Amey have well and truly had the councils pants down

Maybe they have maybe they haven’t - just saying that isn’t proof though is it?

Hmmm - if you like......

 

---------- Post added 17-12-2017 at 23:23 ----------

 

 

Maybe they have maybe they haven’t - just saying that isn’t proof though is it?

Looks very likely though doesn't it? It's hardly going well....especially now the news outleta are reporting the injury of a child too.

It's made the council a national laughing stock, turned many against them forever...and these seems to be nothing they can do or say that makea their situation better. I'd say that looks very much to me like amey have them over a barrel.

 

Maybe they have maybe they haven’t - just saying that isn’t proof though is it?

It's already been admitted that the council cannot force Amey to use any of the 7 possible engineering solutions available in the contract. It's entirely at Amey's discretion.

Whoever wrote the contract is an idiot.

It's already been admitted that the council cannot force Amey to use any of the 7 possible engineering solutions available in the contract. It's entirely at Amey's discretion.

Whoever wrote the contract is an idiot.

... or corporate friendly.

It's already been admitted that the council cannot force Amey to use any of the 7 possible engineering solutions available in the contract. It's entirely at Amey's discretion.

Whoever wrote the contract is an idiot.

......or corrupt.

It's already been admitted that the council cannot force Amey to use any of the 7 possible engineering solutions available in the contract. It's entirely at Amey's discretion.

Whoever wrote the contract is an idiot.

What would you have proposed? Using this example.

It's already been admitted that the council cannot force Amey to use any of the 7 possible engineering solutions available in the contract. It's entirely at Amey's discretion.

Whoever wrote the contract is an idiot.

I think whoever signed the contract is an idiot is perhaps a better point.

Seems to be working fairly well from an Amey perspective.

Looks very likely though doesn't it? It's hardly going well....especially now the news outleta are reporting the injury of a child too.

 

It's made the council a national laughing stock, turned many against them forever...and these seems to be nothing they can do or say that makea their situation better. I'd say that looks very much to me like amey have them over a barrel.

To be fair to Amey on this one, no company was named in The Star's report last week. As usual The Star's journalists couldn't be bothered to do a bit of investigative journalism.

The piece only stated that SCC & the Health & Safety Exec. had been contacted.

What would you have proposed? Using this example.

How about an independent tree panel who's decision about removal of a tree was binding.

Or specific conditions under which trees can and can't be removed.

Or a requirement to reach a certain % of using the engineering solutions.

There are myriad ways that the council could have either written in specifics or retained some measure of control.