Guest makapaka   #49 Posted December 17, 2017 That relates to car parking fines doesnt it?  The contract between Scc and amey won’t have penalty clauses in it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Jeffrey Shaw   83 #50 Posted December 17, 2017 The contract between Scc and amey won’t have penalty clauses in it. It might or it might not. But none of us knows. Either way, it's not very germane to the tree-felling topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #51 Posted December 17, 2017 It might or it might not. But none of us knows. Either way, it's not very germane to the tree-felling topic.  Would you anticipate penalty clauses being drafted into a highways contract in 2012? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
dave_the_m   61 #52 Posted December 17, 2017 Would you anticipate penalty clauses being drafted into a highways contract in 2012?  Let's not get hung up on the exact definition of penalty clauses. What we do know is that Cllr Lodge, the guy at SCC currently in charge of the contract, publicly claimed that if all the planned tree fellings weren't completed by 31st Dec, SCC could end up paying out a 6 figure sum to Amey. So presumably there are clauses in the contract that significantly financially disadvantage one side or the other if certain targets aren't met for various reasons. (When asked to explain in more detail, he said just that it was "complicated"). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
hackey lad   3,827 #53 Posted December 17, 2017 Let's not get hung up on the exact definition of penalty clauses. What we do know is that Cllr Lodge, the guy at SCC currently in charge of the contract, publicly claimed that if all the planned tree fellings weren't completed by 31st Dec, SCC could end up paying out a 6 figure sum to Amey. So presumably there are clauses in the contract that significantly financially disadvantage one side or the other if certain targets aren't met for various reasons. (When asked to explain in more detail, he said just that it was "complicated").  he/she will just answer with another question Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #54 Posted December 17, 2017 Let's not get hung up on the exact definition of penalty clauses. What we do know is that Cllr Lodge, the guy at SCC currently in charge of the contract, publicly claimed that if all the planned tree fellings weren't completed by 31st Dec, SCC could end up paying out a 6 figure sum to Amey. So presumably there are clauses in the contract that significantly financially disadvantage one side or the other if certain targets aren't met for various reasons. (When asked to explain in more detail, he said just that it was "complicated").  But the discussion started because someone claimed that amey were purposefully delaying works in order to invoke penalty clauses.  But no one knows if they are purposefully delaying works - and it’s highly unlikely any penalty clauses exist in the contract anyway (regardless of some case law quotes).  I don’t doubt that if amey are continually delayed by events outside their control to complete there will be recourse to recover loss - however they’re highly unlikely to be able to benefit commercially from purposefully delaying the works. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
hackey lad   3,827 #55 Posted December 17, 2017 But the discussion started because someone claimed that amey were purposefully delaying works in order to invoke penalty clauses. But no one knows if they are purposefully delaying works - and it’s highly unlikely any penalty clauses exist in the contract anyway (regardless of some case law quotes).  I don’t doubt that if amey are continually delayed by events outside their control to complete there will be recourse to recover loss - however they’re highly unlikely to be able to benefit commercially from purposefully delaying the works.  Go on then please explain what Brian Lodge has said on Radio Sheffield and in the local press Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #56 Posted December 17, 2017 Go on then please explain what Brian Lodge has said on Radio Sheffield and in the local press  I just have - they are likely to have recourse for loss arising from delays outside of their control. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
hackey lad   3,827 #57 Posted December 17, 2017 I just have - they are likely to have recourse for loss arising from delays outside of their control.  So how does that answer post 43 ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
dave_the_m   61 #58 Posted December 17, 2017 it’s highly unlikely any penalty clauses exist in the contract anyway (regardless of some case law quotes).  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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest makapaka   #59 Posted December 17, 2017 So how does that answer post 43 ?  Because that post suggests they benefit commercially by being purposefully late.  Having the ability to recover loss due to delays by others isn’t of commercial benefit - you are being reimbursed for losses incurred. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
hackey lad   3,827 #60 Posted December 17, 2017 Because that post suggests they benefit commercially by being purposefully late. Having the ability to recover loss due to delays by others isn’t of commercial benefit - you are being reimbursed for losses incurred.  Depends who is doing the accounting , and who is paying for the losses incurred Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...