Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Stolen Goods Off a Building Site - Who's Liable?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6349 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

These two clauses are in the Terms and Conditions of a Sub-contract.The Subbie was working on a building site and overnight some of the materials he bought in to use on the job, (along with a whole load of other contractors things) were stolen costing him about 3k because the Main Contractor says he was responsible for his own materials in the contract.

 

Can anyone read these two clauses who might be more familiar than I with this terminology and tell me whether they think the Contractor or the Sub-Contractor owns the materials and who should pay for them being stolen? Thanks.

 

14a) The risk in all goods and materials to be incorporated in the sub-contract works and in all plant, tools and equipment for use in connection with sub-contract works, including but not limited to third parties and employees and damage and loss howsoever caused, shall remain with the subcontractor which shall at its own cost maintain insurance of its goods and materials until Practical Completion of the Main Contract Works.

 

14b) Notwithstanding clause 14(a) hereof, all goods, materials and temporary works shall become the property of the Contractor as and when the goods, materials and temporary works or any part thereof are first identified, inspected and appropriated by the Contractor for the Sub-Contract Works and in any event upon delivery to the site and whether payment therefore has at that time been made by the Contractor in whole or in part or not at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plain English eh??!?!

 

Section 1 states that all goods that are the property of the subcontractor are left there at the subcontractors peril. i.e. he needs to insure them himself.

 

The second part states that any goods the subcontractor pays for to do the work immediately become the possession of the contractor when they come in the premises, whether he has paid for them or not.

 

The second part is in case there is a payment dispute, i.e. the subcontractor cannot demolish the building to get the bricks back (as the contractor has not paid for the bricks)

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig, love the red dot ! :D Hope you weren't too bad or I'll get clobbered for condoning you! :D

 

The second part to me contradicts the first and as I read it, it sounds like the goods become the property of the Contractor " as and when the goods, materials and temporary works or any part thereof are first identified ( seen on site) Inspected (checked) and appropriated (said where they are going) by the Contractor ie: checked in, and in any event upon delivery to the site....

 

That's the way I read it anyway. Therefore making the goods the property of the Contractor when they are delivered on-site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think it needs to be interpretated that the goods for the purpose of making the building, etc. are automatically owned by the contractor when they come on site and are checked and appropriated.

 

However, the clauses state that although the contractor as a contractual interest in the goods, the onus is on the subcontractor to insure them.

 

however, these clauses could be irrelevant if the contractor was negligent in the security of the building. ie. e was told to leave the goods on the building site, as there is a security guard, and there was none, etc.

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think it needs to be interpretated that the goods for the purpose of making the building, etc. are automatically owned by the contractor when they come on site and are checked and appropriated.

 

However, the clauses state that although the contractor as a contractual interest in the goods, the onus is on the subcontractor to insure them.

 

however, these clauses could be irrelevant if the contractor was negligent in the security of the building. ie. e was told to leave the goods on the building site, as there is a security guard, and there was none, etc.

 

"However, the clauses state that although the contractor as a contractual interest in the goods, the onus is on the subcontractor to insure them."

 

Can you insure something that doesn't belong to you?

 

 

"however, these clauses could be irrelevant if the contractor was negligent in the security of the building. ie. e was told to leave the goods on the building site, as there is a security guard, and there was none, etc."

 

The security of the site was the responsibility of the Contractor and apparently there was a security guard - now quite where he was looking whilst the stuff was being loaded onto the getaway lorry god only knows. So how do we tackle that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My te pence worth

 

First of all for one to insure something there needs to be a insurable interest for that particular item.

 

If what we are talking about is equipment that a subbie is provided with, for completing a task then I would say he has an interest in that item, and if required he should be able to insure that. The key word is insurable interest. Secondly in my opinion if the contractor is expecting the subbie to insure items that will deminish in value as they get used i.e. as he starts laying the bricks the value of the stock will start diminishing and the insurance risk will pass from the subbie to that of building owner, then that is slightly different.

 

Hope you get the jist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These were Tiles ( Floor and Wall )and the fixing materials not tools, a whole pallet of quality tiles. The subbie had ordered them and had them delivered on site and was to use them on the contract - but they vanished overnight and the contractor is saying the subbie should suffer the loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, with the terminology of the wording, then the contractor is right. However, As a long shot I would contract the security company to see if the security guard was there, was this the only site he patrolled, or if he was a man in a van, were the contractors aware, and paid for this?

 

Regarding the insurable interest, the subcontractor has contractual interest in the goods, so yes insurable interest is there.

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sub contractor is liable .It was his duty to look after them ..

You can get theft cover if you organise it ....But it is a hassle .... looked at it recently as I was going to build a couple of houses

 

written with 30 years of contracting experience

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...