Council tree felling...

[hackey lad 3,937]

I don’t know the circumstances of this contract though which is why I’ve not suggested otherwise.

 

I was just pointing out how some scenarios play out and that it can be wrong to make certain assumptions.

 

Ok , hypothetically speaking , from what you know and have read . Who do you think have the better of the contract , the Council or Amey ?

[ENG601PM 10]

Well, one of us shows a lack of understanding, but then again one of us thought that we hadn't seen any details of the contract...

You're guesses about the councillors comments don't explain them in the slightest.

Why would Amey be able to reclaim damages for IT NOT COMPLETING work it's contractually obliged to do? You appear to be thinking about this backwards. Should Amey be delayed by (for example, the weather), then Amey is in breach of the agreed contract. Yet the councillor says that the council will have to pay Amey... For it's failure to complete.

Does that sound even remotely equitable?

 

Perhaps in the next contract I form, I'll suggest a clause that has a company pay me extra if I fail to deliver the work I'm agreeing to, by the agreed date. I can imagine that they'll jump at the chance.

 

I haven't seen the contract either but makapaka is totally correct. It is absolutely standard practice in such contractual development for parties to accept greater or lesser amounts of risk depending on the organisational appetite for it. A good contract drafting and negotiation reflects this in the pricing.

 

Your bad weather example is such a common issue that it has been written down to standard clauses for decades, and it doesn't generally put the contractor in breach. Neither do floods, or bombs, or gales, or other force majeure.

 

So yes, you are correct, one of you shows a lack of understanding.

 

The question is whether the council has procured the contract well and is now managing it well after engrossment. Without sight of the full contract it is impossible to draw a conclusion although the evidence seems to indicate that it has been / is being twirled by Amey. They don't employ buildings full of claims surveyors for nothing.

Edited December 21, 2017 by ENG601PM

[Cyclone 10]

You've entirely misunderstood the point under discussion, try again.

 

The council have said that should Amey miss the deadline then the COUNCIL will owe AMEY damages.

 

See how that is backwards to what would be a normal clause... Extenuating circumstances are routinely written in yes, but that's irrelevant when the contractual clause appears to be backwards.

 

The COUNCIL will owe a penalty if the subcontractor is late in delivering. Or so claim the council.

[ENG601PM 10]

You've entirely misunderstood the point under discussion, try again.

 

The council have said that should Amey miss the deadline then the COUNCIL will owe AMEY damages.

 

See how that is backwards to what would be a normal clause... Extenuating circumstances are routinely written in yes, but that's irrelevant when the contractual clause appears to be backwards.

 

The COUNCIL will owe a penalty if the subcontractor is late in delivering. Or so claim the council.

 

That is perfectly normal, more so if you aren't very good at negotiating or managing contracts. It's not me that's misunderstanding. You've had it explained by people who clearly do this sort of thing for a living. I don't know who or what makapaka is but I can tell that they understand contractual issues like this, because I do too and the language and understanding is familiar. When I need to understand computer code I'll listen carefully to what you have to say.

Edited December 21, 2017 by ENG601PM

[Baron99 775]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-40962193

 

Sheffield City Council, (a.k.a.Sheffield Council tax payers), are facing paying Amey financial penalties if the remaining tree felling has not been satisfactorily completed by the end of this year. I wonder though are we being taken for a ride on this?

 

I started a thread a couple of weeks ago that tree felling was due to take place on Sandford Grove Rd between 11th - 15th Dec. Well no work took place. No demonstrators showed up, so that couldn't be the reason for the work not talking place & neither could the weather have been a factor as the same time Amey was supposed to be working on Sandford Grove Rd, Amey workers were turning up at 4:30am to fell trees on Abbeydale Park Rise.

 

This is the 3rd time on 2017, (June; Oct & now Dec), that Amey have failed to carry out scheduled work on Sandford Grove Rd & a few surrounding road.

 

I'm starting to wonder if Amey are deliberately delaying work, so as to ensure the financial penalties actually kick in.

 

Further to the above & no work being carried out in the area between 11th -15th Dec, a new boards have gone up, (some time between Sunday 17th to Monday 18th Dec), stating motorists should remove their cars between 7am - 7pm, as work is due to be carried out from 14th Dec for 8 days (?).

 

You guessed it. Not a single Amey worker in sight as of the 21st Dec.

[Guest makapaka]

Ok , hypothetically speaking , from what you know and have read . Who do you think have the better of the contract , the Council or Amey ?

 

I don't think there's enough information available to form a view.

 

It's also a bit over-simplistic to ask who "has the better of the contract" - there are mountains of things to consider when approaching a question like that.

[Cyclone 10]

You're being ridiculous, it's quite obvious to everyone that Amey have the whip hand and that the council have signed away any oversight or control that they might have had.

 

---------- Post added 23-12-2017 at 09:15 ----------

 

That is perfectly normal

 

Well, you should be able to dig up plenty of examples then. Go right ahead.

How is it normal for the client to owe damages for the failure of the contractor to deliver on time?

I'm looking forwards to watching you wiggle and squirm on this one.

[Guest makapaka]

You're being ridiculous, it's quite obvious to everyone that Amey have the whip hand and that the council have signed away any oversight or control that they might have had.

 

---------- Post added 23-12-2017 at 09:15 ----------

 

 

Well, you should be able to dig up plenty of examples then. Go right ahead.

How is it normal for the client to owe damages for the failure of the contractor to deliver on time?

I'm looking forwards to watching you wiggle and squirm on this one.

 

Are you not reading previous posts?

 

Here’s another potential scenario.

 

One of the earlier posters said that the council introduced the tree panel post contract (I don’t know if this true so I am assuming the poster is correct).

 

If awaiting decisions of this panel delay the works beyond the agreed completion date, and incur costs for the Contractor, there is every chance that the contractor would be able to recover those costs from the council.

 

What bit are you struggling with?

 

http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/delay-claims-in-construction-cases-common-pitfalls.html

Edited December 23, 2017 by makapaka

[Cyclone 10]

The tree panel doesn't get to make any decisions, and is routinely ignored when it recommends not removing trees, so why would they need to wait for a recommendation they will ignore?

 

A delay caused by the council could result in damages. But that wasn't what the councillor said though. He simply said that if they don't complete on time, the council will be liable.

[cytine 40]

I wonder how many of the protesters have cut down a perfectly healthy tree just because they simply have to have a real Christmas tree to decorate their homes?

[Robin-H 11]

I wonder how many of the protesters have cut down a perfectly healthy tree just because they simply have to have a real Christmas tree to decorate their homes?

 

Oh this old chestnut again! I had to dismantle this absolutely preposterous argument last year.

[cytine 40]

Oh this old chestnut again! I had to dismantle this absolutely preposterous argument last year.

 

So you had to dismantle this argument last year? Who the hell are you and why is it preposterous? No explanation just a preposterous comment.