Council tree felling...

[Cyclone 10]

Well, you're entitled to an opinion of course, but your words are clearly visible to everyone.

 

Indeed, you should probably resign.

[cgksheff 44]

I would be fairly sure that if demonstrators delayed the felling and pruning of trees, and that those delays had a knock on effect on all the other target deadlines, a situation can arise that a delay in tree management could result in a variation claim to the benefit of Amey

 

No?

[Baron99 795]

I would be fairly sure that if demonstrators delayed the felling and pruning of trees, and that those delays had a knock on effect on all the other target deadlines, a situation can arise that a delay in tree management could result in a variation claim to the benefit of Amey

 

No?

 

I was going to leave thing until Wednesday 10th Jan to see if any work had been carried out but you posting has prompted me to post now.

 

You can probably guess what I'm going to state? No tree felling or road / pavement resurfacing took place today on Sandford Grove Rd or any of the surrounding roads & apparently again, no sign of either protesters or Amey / SCC workers for a second day running.

[Cyclone 10]

I would be fairly sure that if demonstrators delayed the felling and pruning of trees, and that those delays had a knock on effect on all the other target deadlines, a situation can arise that a delay in tree management could result in a variation claim to the benefit of Amey

 

No?

 

I can't see why the council would be financially responsible for events outside their control.

[hackey lad 3,976]

I was going to leave thing until Wednesday 10th Jan to see if any work had been carried out but you posting has prompted me to post now.

 

You can probably guess what I'm going to state? No tree felling or road / pavement resurfacing took place today on Sandford Grove Rd or any of the surrounding roads & apparently again, no sign of either protesters or Amey / SCC workers for a second day running.

 

The way things are going , I can honestly see this contract with Amey and the council going ***s up and it will cost Sheffield council tax payers a fortune

[dave_the_m 61]

From the contract:

 

19.2.1 As between the Authority and the Service Provider, the Service Provider shall

bear, without recourse to the Authority, any Loss suffered by any person

which is caused by any Protestor or Trespasser, including any damage to

property, any personal injury or death, and any loss of income (including any

reduction in the Monthly Payment).

[hackey lad 3,976]

just to add . Im not on about whats in the contract about delayed work and who pays what . Im on about the full 25 year contract

[Guest makapaka]

Like I said, bizarre. You've been defending it for pages, yet at the same time claiming you aren't.

 

What I said was overly simplistic was your claim that penalty charges don't exist, that's correct, your claim was overly simplistic.

 

You HAVEN'T and still refuse to explain how being late to deliver can cost the contractee and not the contractor, with regards to this contract. The situations you have described allow for additional charges due to the contract being changed somehow after it's signed. Variation orders being made to enact such changes. It's not the 'delay' that attracts additional charges, it's the additional work.

 

What examples of these possibly recoverable delays can you think of then?

 

My argument is that either the contract is poorly put together or the councillor is telling porkies. One of those situations must be true.

 

Your post #105

 

“A delay caused by the council could result in damages.”

 

Your post above

 

“It’s not the ‘delay’ that attracts additional charges”

 

You don’t understand - lack of understanding is not a bad thing, constantly ignoring people who do is at best silly and at worst arrogant.

[Cyclone 10]

If Amey don't finish on time, it won't be because the council have caused a delay or introduced additional work.

 

Protesters are not protesting on behalf of the council or under the control of the council.

 

Dave_the_m already posted the relevant bit of the contract.

 

You've given no indication that you understand, but if you do, then you've proven have to have terrible communication skills as you have failed to explain for about 6 pages now. You spent several pages not even understanding the point about which party (according to the councillor) would be claiming damages.

[Guest makapaka]

If Amey don't finish on time, it won't be because the council have caused a delay or introduced additional work.

 

Protesters are not protesting on behalf of the council or under the control of the council.

 

Dave_the_m already posted the relevant bit of the contract.

 

You've given no indication that you understand, but if you do, then you've proven have to have terrible communication skills as you have failed to explain for about 6 pages now. You spent several pages not even understanding the point about which party (according to the councillor) would be claiming damages.

 

Well if that's the case so be it.

 

It's not really possible to interpret contracts by reading clauses in isolation - the quoted clause also talks about losses by a person, not the Service Provider or Employer, although I believe Robin_H also confirmed that protestor action was a risk borne by the Service Provider. It would be possible that reading the contract as a whole that the clause also applies to the Service Provider - I don't know.

 

I fully understood the point about who would be claiming damages - the only thing I clarified was your statement that if the contractor was late then damages wouldn't be due. This is generally true where the delay is caused or is at the risk of the Contractor, but not where it is caused or at the risk of the Employer.

 

You accepted this back in post #105, then changed your mind again a couple of posts ago. Telling me I was wrong and should resign from my job.

 

I do agree there was probably some miscommunication along the way - it would probably have been quite easily clarified if your approach hadn't been to continually state that your view was correct despite advice to the contrary - and maybe just ask for clarification whilst accepting someone may have more knowledge or experience of such matters.

 

Anyway - I've had enough of the subject. Bored now.

Edited January 10, 2018 by makapaka

[hackey lad 3,976]

Well if that's the case so be it.

 

It's not really possible to interpret contracts by reading clauses in isolation - the quoted clause also talks about losses by a person, not the Service Provider or Employer, although I believe Robin_H also confirmed that protestor action was a risk borne by the Service Provider. It would be possible that reading the contract as a whole that the clause also applies to the Service Provider - I don't know.

 

I fully understood the point about who would be claiming damages - the only thing I clarified was your statement that if the contractor was late then damages wouldn't be due. This is generally true where the delay is caused or is at the risk of the Contractor, but not where it is caused or at the risk of the Employer.

 

You accepted this back in post #105, then changed your mind again a couple of posts ago. Telling me I was wrong and should resign from my job.

 

I do agree there was probably some miscommunication along the way - it would probably have been quite easily clarified if your approach hadn't been to continually state that your view was correct despite advice to the contrary - and maybe just ask for clarification whilst accepting someone may have more knowledge or experience of such matters.

 

Anyway - I've had enough of the subject. Bored now.

 

Hallelujah

[tattoo 10]

Does anyone care it's only a tree for gods sake surely there's far more things to get worried about..... A tree. Ffs