Council tree felling...

[Guest makapaka]

Well, let's assume he was talking about damages.

How does a failure of Amey to deliver, result in the council having to pay more? In what world can the council be responsible for the failure of Amey to meet its contractual obligations to the council?

 

I think he was talking about issues which the contractor potentially can recover costs for - I think someone earlier posted about issues regarding the tree panel which was introduced post-contract? (I don’t know or profess to know the details of the project/contract).

 

I believe the comments he made were in the context of the contractor being delayed / prevented from doing work by others?

 

Are you suggesting that the councillor was saying that the contractor could benefit from their own breach?

[Cyclone]

Well, yes, pages and pages ago that was explained multiple times and you didn't seem to get it.

The councillor wasn't clear, but the only delays that have been suffered have been due to protests, the council isn't responsible for these, nor is Amey, so it seems likely that they would be covered by unforeseen circumstances clauses in the contract, much like a delay caused by inclement weather.

The councillor hasn't chosen to explain his comments, but it seems like 1 of 2 scenarios are likely, either the contract is massively in favour of Amey, or the councillor was telling porkies.

Either of which is unacceptable of course, if it's the contract then that leads to the point being made about incompetence and lack of due diligence. And if he's just lying then he should be sacked as a councillor.

[Guest makapaka]

Well, yes, pages and pages ago that was explained multiple times and you didn't seem to get it.

The councillor wasn't clear, but the only delays that have been suffered have been due to protests, the council isn't responsible for these, nor is Amey, so it seems likely that they would be covered by unforeseen circumstances clauses in the contract, much like a delay caused by inclement weather.

The councillor hasn't chosen to explain his comments, but it seems like 1 of 2 scenarios are likely, either the contract is massively in favour of Amey, or the councillor was telling porkies.

Either of which is unacceptable of course, if it's the contract then that leads to the point being made about incompetence and lack of due diligence. And if he's just lying then he should be sacked as a councillor.

 

We were talking about penalty clauses within the contract - which it’s been established don’t exist.

 

How do you know about the type and nature of the delay?

 

Do you believe there is an express clause within the contract that states that the contractor can benefit from its breach - or perhaps that the councillor just used the wrong terminology?

[cgksheff]

Get a room!!!

[Cyclone]

We were talking about penalty clauses within the contract - which it’s been established don’t exist.

No we weren't. We were talking about the claims made by the councillor.

 

How do you know about the type and nature of the delay?

Don't you read the news?

 

Do you believe there is an express clause within the contract that states that the contractor can benefit from its breach - or perhaps that the councillor just used the wrong terminology?

Perhaps the councillor used the "wrong terminology" when he

 

"The council has warned that it must now complete work to remove and replace 6,000 street trees by the end of this year, with around 500 left to still be removed. If not, it says it will be in breach of its PFI contract with Amey, which is due to move into a 20-year “maintenance” phase from the start of the next year.

 

Read more at: https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/sheffield-council-claims-it-may-have-to-pay-millions-if-500-trees-not-axed-by-new-year-1-8707287"

 

The council will be in breach of the contract, he says, if the work is not completed by Amey... And the reason for delays given is protests.

 

I really don't see how any of that could be "wrong terminology". You seem determined to defend this contract despite it's quite obvious flaws!

[Guest makapaka]

I’m not determined to defend anything - just highlighting inaccuracies in the interest of balance.

[neeeeeeeeeek]

I’m not determined to defend anything - just highlighting inaccuracies in the interest of balance.

 

You're not though are you, you continue to argue and disagree with points that have been made repeatedly as if they were never said until they are reposted then you completely ignore them and move onto something else.

[Guest makapaka]

You're not though are you, you continue to argue and disagree with points that have been made repeatedly as if they were never said until they are reposted then you completely ignore them and move onto something else.

 

No that’s not true at all.

 

I’ve been consistent throughout.

 

My involvement in the discussion came when someone stated the contract contains penalty clauses (it doesn’t) and that the contractor should not be entitled to recover costs for delay (they most likely can).

 

What have I ignored - let me know for clarity?

[Cyclone]

I’m not determined to defend anything - just highlighting inaccuracies in the interest of balance.

 

That's not what you've been doing, you've misinterpretation and misunderstanding to try to explain away the comments the councillor made, for the past 4 pages.

And when finally pinned down, you suggest that he used "the wrong terminology", despite that not being possible given what he said.

You're determined that neither the contract nor the councillors be seen in a bad light, despite it being obvious that there is a huge problem.

 

---------- Post added 08-01-2018 at 07:30 ----------

 

Nand that the contractor should not be entitled to recover costs for delay (they most likely can).

 

You're still trying to claim that a contractor can recover damages for failure to deliver to the contract. It's like some kind of parallel universe.

[Guest makapaka]

That's not what you've been doing, you've misinterpretation and misunderstanding to try to explain away the comments the councillor made, for the past 4 pages.

And when finally pinned down, you suggest that he used "the wrong terminology", despite that not being possible given what he said.

You're determined that neither the contract nor the councillors be seen in a bad light, despite it being obvious that there is a huge problem.

 

---------- Post added 08-01-2018 at 07:30 ----------

 

 

You're still trying to claim that a contractor can recover damages for failure to deliver to the contract. It's like some kind of parallel universe.

 

"Finally pinned down" - ha!

 

I've explained the principle of the contractors ability to recover damages numerous times.

 

You just keep accusing me of saying that the contractor will be able to recover costs for their own failings - which I've never said. Just repeating the same thing doesn't make you right or having "pinned down" the opposing argument - how arrogant.

 

As for the "wrong terminology" I don't know if this is true or not - but given that it's been established there are no penalty clauses in the contract - for me it appears possible that either;

 

There is a potential that the councillor was referring to damages not penalties.

 

or

 

That neither damages or penalties are due to the Contractor and the statement was incorrect for whatever reason.

 

There's nothing defending the council or anyone else by asking that question.