manxchatterbox Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 FFS - Taxpayers are going to have to foot £229,800 bill for "remedial work" to the 'new' Courthouse built in 1997... and all the windows have to be replaced because of corrosion already eating into the frames.... who was the architect and the Govt's building control officer who in the first instance sanctioned and allowed frames to be installed that would rust... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 It is not costing the Taxpayer anything for the remedial works. the sum you quoted is the return of retention to the main contractor on completion of his defects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted April 18, 2006 Author Share Posted April 18, 2006 thank you theskeat for the info...as your close to the game how about info on the other point about responsibility??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theskeat Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 ...as your close to the game ?? responsibility??? Would it not be with the main contractor, just like when you buy a new car, if it breaks down or goes rusty in the first couple of year would you pay for the repairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 ha ha ha thats what i call comedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted April 18, 2006 Author Share Posted April 18, 2006 I wonder 'cos like this scenario:- I want a house built. I ask an architect to draw up the plan. I get a builder/contractor to agree to build the house and intorduce the builder to the architect. I'm given a contract to sign off on. I don't know about building so "trust" the architect to deal with the builder. The house gets built and when I move in the roof leaks and low and behold its 'cos its made of paper.. Doh!!So, whose fault is that then? Hmm the contractor? No. He follows the plan and specs given by the architect. The architect? No. He had the plans agreed by me, the client. Ah, so there we have it. The answer is a Govt numbskull being the person who agreed the specs in the architects plans.... ....makes you wonder what schemes and specifications that 'responsible' Govt individual has agreed since the new Court house and what schemes are yet to be rectified (a building nearing completion not all that far away from teh Court house comes to mind) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 MCB, could you read this post again please? It is not costing the Taxpayer anything for the remedial works. the sum you quoted is the return of retention to the main contractor on completion of his defects. Can't verify its accuracy, but it has the ring of truth about it! PS. in your scenario, the architect surely would be responsible as that is why you pay him to design your building, regardless of whether you have approved the plans. You have approved the overall scheme as being to your requirements, not the technical specifications, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted April 19, 2006 Author Share Posted April 19, 2006 nah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Manxchatteringbollox only wants to talk, not listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy One Mate Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 MCB what the Skeat has stated is correct and shouldnt you be applauding government for witholding the money until the defect is corrected. Your scenario about the Architect obviously has no relevance to this matter whatsoever as obviously the Contractor has installed windows that didnt meet the specification or take it as fact that they wouldnt be getting replaced. Anybody with any sense would realise that if the Architect specifies something that isnt fit for purpose then he would be responsible for any cost in replacing the item or any remedial works required. THAT I SUPPOSE IS WHY ALL THESE ARCHITECTS HAVE A PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 MCB what the Skeat has stated is correct and shouldnt you be applauding government for witholding the money until the defect is corrected. Now you're asking for too much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.