£95,000 row over Southend's Prittlewell Priory revamp

Echo: GW Carpentry managing director Geoff Woolcomb GW Carpentry managing director Geoff Woolcomb

A CARPENTRY firm raided the revamped Prittlewell Priory and removed doors, drawers and shelves because of a dispute over £95,000.

GW Carpentry, which is based on the Cranes Farm industrial estate in Basildon, was threatened with being reported to the police by Southend Council after reclaiming the products it made as part of the £1.8million restoration project.

The firm took the drastic action because it was left out of pocket by the collapse of Ibex Interiors, the company hired by council chiefs to oversee the revamp of the 1000-year-old Priory.

But, following a four-month stand-off, the council has still refused to meet GW’s unpaid bill and instead hired another carpentry firm to replace the missing goods.

Geoff Woolcomb, GW’s managing director, said he was bitterly disappointed by the outcome.

He said: “We are proud to be a local firm employing local people, and we just feel the council could have done more to help us.

“We were not looking to get all the money back, we just wanted to talk about the way forward.

“But the council simply refused to listen or help in any way.”

GW, which employs about 60 people, was one of a raft of firms subcontracted by Ibex to work on the two-year Priory revamp.

However, when Ibex went into administration in June, GW was left with a large unpaid bill.

Mr Woolcomb said he had warned Ibex he would remove the goods if it did not pay out before administrators moved in, and claimed they still belonged to his firm because no money had changed hands.

But council chiefs argued they had become part of the site and were therefore owned by the authority, and their removal could be deemed to be theft.

Nick Harris, the council’s head of culture, said: “We sympathise with their predicament.

“However, we believe GW and the other subcontractors who claim they are owed money, should take this up with the administrators.

“There are fixtures and fittings at the Priory which the Council paid for and regards as its property, but which GW has removed.

“We are not pursuing action to recover this property, but we will not be paying for it a second time as we have already paid the main contractor for it.”

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:33pm Thu 13 Dec 12

j-w says...

But, following a four-month stand-off, the council has still refused to meet GW’s unpaid bill and instead hired another carpentry firm to replace the missing goods.

“We are not pursuing action to recover this property, but we will not be paying for it a second time as we have already paid the main contractor for it.”
Are the current firm doing it for free then? I think it would have made more sense to just pay GW some money instead of waiting for them to come and raid the goods and then pay someone else to replace them (Even though I agree that GW's gripe should have been with Ibex and they should have been prevented from removing the items in the first place)
[quote]But, following a four-month stand-off, the council has still refused to meet GW’s unpaid bill and instead hired another carpentry firm to replace the missing goods.[/quote] [quote]“We are not pursuing action to recover this property, but we will not be paying for it a second time as we have already paid the main contractor for it.” [/quote] Are the current firm doing it for free then? I think it would have made more sense to just pay GW some money instead of waiting for them to come and raid the goods and then pay someone else to replace them (Even though I agree that GW's gripe should have been with Ibex and they should have been prevented from removing the items in the first place) j-w

2:49pm Thu 13 Dec 12

Andycal 172D says...

Sorry but the usual terms are the goods remain the property of the supplier until they're paid for.

It's the Council's fault for using a dodgy main contractor - as usual trying to cut corners and pinch pennies when they should have hired a reputable firm in the first place.

It would be extremely interesting to see the terms of the contract between the Council and Ibex and even more so to know if any of the directors/councillor
s were golfing buddies or similar.
Sorry but the usual terms are the goods remain the property of the supplier until they're paid for. It's the Council's fault for using a dodgy main contractor - as usual trying to cut corners and pinch pennies when they should have hired a reputable firm in the first place. It would be extremely interesting to see the terms of the contract between the Council and Ibex and even more so to know if any of the directors/councillor s were golfing buddies or similar. Andycal 172D

3:00pm Thu 13 Dec 12

Rat Catcher says...

I agree with j-w. The current firm will be charging them. GW would be happy to get a proportion of the cost for the goods. So, the council decide to leave a local company £95k out of pocket with the exact goods the building requires, and employ another company to remake the lot and charge for it. Yes GW gripe is with Ibex, but I can see much more agreeable solution which costs the tax payer less.
I agree with j-w. The current firm will be charging them. GW would be happy to get a proportion of the cost for the goods. So, the council decide to leave a local company £95k out of pocket with the exact goods the building requires, and employ another company to remake the lot and charge for it. Yes GW gripe is with Ibex, but I can see much more agreeable solution which costs the tax payer less. Rat Catcher

3:12pm Thu 13 Dec 12

reptile says...

Hope the priory ghost didn't go with the removed goods.
Hope the priory ghost didn't go with the removed goods. reptile

3:33pm Thu 13 Dec 12

Nebs says...

Councils seem pretty good at appointing firms that go bust, didn't something similar happen at some football pitches. Whatever happened to due diligence.
Councils seem pretty good at appointing firms that go bust, didn't something similar happen at some football pitches. Whatever happened to due diligence. Nebs

3:36pm Thu 13 Dec 12

billericay boy says...

Uk Building Law Sucks, In some country's if you cant pay the bill you go to prison. administrators they make sure they get there money first, then the tax man, stuff every one else.
Uk Building Law Sucks, In some country's if you cant pay the bill you go to prison. administrators they make sure they get there money first, then the tax man, stuff every one else. billericay boy

4:09pm Thu 13 Dec 12

halojump says...

Andycal 172D wrote:
Sorry but the usual terms are the goods remain the property of the supplier until they're paid for. It's the Council's fault for using a dodgy main contractor - as usual trying to cut corners and pinch pennies when they should have hired a reputable firm in the first place. It would be extremely interesting to see the terms of the contract between the Council and Ibex and even more so to know if any of the directors/councillor s were golfing buddies or similar.
Hang on andy do you credit check people when you ask them to supply you with a service?
Or would you credit check a firm you are about to supply with goods on credit?
Most suppliers of goods on credit have an insurance which pays if they are left out of pocket but it seems these smaller concerns either dont know about this or are the ones cutting corners.
The council never entered into a contract with this firm and had every right to keep the product. You cannot reclaim the goods without a court order its an old wives tale that you can help yourself to the stuff later on. The southen council tax payer has now been effected by the actions as they will have to pay for replacements and take action against the firm who removed the goods.
It would have been wrong for the council to have paid twice for these goods and all liable action remained with the now defunctional priniple contractor.
[quote][p][bold]Andycal 172D[/bold] wrote: Sorry but the usual terms are the goods remain the property of the supplier until they're paid for. It's the Council's fault for using a dodgy main contractor - as usual trying to cut corners and pinch pennies when they should have hired a reputable firm in the first place. It would be extremely interesting to see the terms of the contract between the Council and Ibex and even more so to know if any of the directors/councillor s were golfing buddies or similar.[/p][/quote]Hang on andy do you credit check people when you ask them to supply you with a service? Or would you credit check a firm you are about to supply with goods on credit? Most suppliers of goods on credit have an insurance which pays if they are left out of pocket but it seems these smaller concerns either dont know about this or are the ones cutting corners. The council never entered into a contract with this firm and had every right to keep the product. You cannot reclaim the goods without a court order its an old wives tale that you can help yourself to the stuff later on. The southen council tax payer has now been effected by the actions as they will have to pay for replacements and take action against the firm who removed the goods. It would have been wrong for the council to have paid twice for these goods and all liable action remained with the now defunctional priniple contractor. halojump

4:41pm Thu 13 Dec 12

Brunning999 says...

Here we go again and another subcontractor suffers.

Councils now rely totally on a list of approved contractors provided by a company who struggles to control the list, which this is an example.

The councils no longer worry about how good or how credit worthy the so called 'approved' companies are.

And this is an example of the pass the buck scenario by the council 'we got them from the list'

Just because you are on a list of so called approved companies does not mean you are any good and in most cases they then just sub it out with the subby charging lots less which the Council could have selected in he first place !!!
Here we go again and another subcontractor suffers. Councils now rely totally on a list of approved contractors provided by a company who struggles to control the list, which this is an example. The councils no longer worry about how good or how credit worthy the so called 'approved' companies are. And this is an example of the pass the buck scenario by the council 'we got them from the list' Just because you are on a list of so called approved companies does not mean you are any good and in most cases they then just sub it out with the subby charging lots less which the Council could have selected in he first place !!! Brunning999

4:46pm Thu 13 Dec 12

Andycal 172D says...

halojump wrote:
Andycal 172D wrote:
Sorry but the usual terms are the goods remain the property of the supplier until they're paid for. It's the Council's fault for using a dodgy main contractor - as usual trying to cut corners and pinch pennies when they should have hired a reputable firm in the first place. It would be extremely interesting to see the terms of the contract between the Council and Ibex and even more so to know if any of the directors/councillor s were golfing buddies or similar.
Hang on andy do you credit check people when you ask them to supply you with a service?
Or would you credit check a firm you are about to supply with goods on credit?
Most suppliers of goods on credit have an insurance which pays if they are left out of pocket but it seems these smaller concerns either dont know about this or are the ones cutting corners.
The council never entered into a contract with this firm and had every right to keep the product. You cannot reclaim the goods without a court order its an old wives tale that you can help yourself to the stuff later on. The southen council tax payer has now been effected by the actions as they will have to pay for replacements and take action against the firm who removed the goods.
It would have been wrong for the council to have paid twice for these goods and all liable action remained with the now defunctional priniple contractor.
Yes I do check up on clients before I act for them - and they only come to me through personal reference. So, yes I check up, I have to under the terms of the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations.

As for your misconstruction of the law, if your terms of trade are that the goods supplied remain your property until they are paid for, you can take them back at any point until they are paid for. The goods were supplied to Ibex, not the Council. Therefore they can take them back from Ibex.

The point you are missing is that they offered the goods to the Council at the same price and the Council didn't want to begotiate with them - probably thinking they could get them at a knock down value from the Administrators.

So, no. I have no sympathy for the Council. The loss of payment for a contract of this size to even a fairly substantial local business HURTS! It can make people lose their jobs and even close a business putting people on the dole.

The people that should have done the credit checks and due diligence are the Council - the obviously didn't do too good a job as Ibex are in administration. Strangely enough this doesn't please me because it's yet another example of the Council's managerial incompetence costing us, the council tax payers, money.
[quote][p][bold]halojump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andycal 172D[/bold] wrote: Sorry but the usual terms are the goods remain the property of the supplier until they're paid for. It's the Council's fault for using a dodgy main contractor - as usual trying to cut corners and pinch pennies when they should have hired a reputable firm in the first place. It would be extremely interesting to see the terms of the contract between the Council and Ibex and even more so to know if any of the directors/councillor s were golfing buddies or similar.[/p][/quote]Hang on andy do you credit check people when you ask them to supply you with a service? Or would you credit check a firm you are about to supply with goods on credit? Most suppliers of goods on credit have an insurance which pays if they are left out of pocket but it seems these smaller concerns either dont know about this or are the ones cutting corners. The council never entered into a contract with this firm and had every right to keep the product. You cannot reclaim the goods without a court order its an old wives tale that you can help yourself to the stuff later on. The southen council tax payer has now been effected by the actions as they will have to pay for replacements and take action against the firm who removed the goods. It would have been wrong for the council to have paid twice for these goods and all liable action remained with the now defunctional priniple contractor.[/p][/quote]Yes I do check up on clients before I act for them - and they only come to me through personal reference. So, yes I check up, I have to under the terms of the Anti-Money Laundering Regulations. As for your misconstruction of the law, if your terms of trade are that the goods supplied remain your property until they are paid for, you can take them back at any point until they are paid for. The goods were supplied to Ibex, not the Council. Therefore they can take them back from Ibex. The point you are missing is that they offered the goods to the Council at the same price and the Council didn't want to begotiate with them - probably thinking they could get them at a knock down value from the Administrators. So, no. I have no sympathy for the Council. The loss of payment for a contract of this size to even a fairly substantial local business HURTS! It can make people lose their jobs and even close a business putting people on the dole. The people that should have done the credit checks and due diligence are the Council - the obviously didn't do too good a job as Ibex are in administration. Strangely enough this doesn't please me because it's yet another example of the Council's managerial incompetence costing us, the council tax payers, money. Andycal 172D

4:56pm Thu 13 Dec 12

halojump says...

Ibex interiors have previously given work to this subcontractor GW Carpentry and GW have boasted on their case study of previously completed work how that contract for work on Aqua Restaurant, Regent Street, London made them £100,000. How can this be Southend councils fault? The approved contractors list is for companies who carry out regular maintance work not
for project work, as these are open to everyone who meets criteria toput in a bid. (e.g iso9001 standards) This company have basically tried bullying southend council to pay up when they are not liable and have done this out of spite rather than to recover goods.
G W carpentrys website boasts how they supply schools and councils, i hope that Southend Council write to other councils and essex county council letting them know of their conduct.
Ibex interiors have previously given work to this subcontractor GW Carpentry and GW have boasted on their case study of previously completed work how that contract for work on Aqua Restaurant, Regent Street, London made them £100,000. How can this be Southend councils fault? The approved contractors list is for companies who carry out regular maintance work not for project work, as these are open to everyone who meets criteria toput in a bid. (e.g iso9001 standards) This company have basically tried bullying southend council to pay up when they are not liable and have done this out of spite rather than to recover goods. G W carpentrys website boasts how they supply schools and councils, i hope that Southend Council write to other councils and essex county council letting them know of their conduct. halojump

5:05pm Thu 13 Dec 12

halojump says...

andy i quote you "The point you are missing is that they offered the goods to the Council at the same price and the Council didn't want to begotiate with them - probably thinking they could get them at a knock down value from the Administrators"
You are missing the point that Southend Council were not hoping to get anything cheaper from anyone, they have already paid for the items.
Thank god for IS0 9001 though because that makes contractors and subcontractors stick to standards which also include the supply of goods and services.
andy i quote you "The point you are missing is that they offered the goods to the Council at the same price and the Council didn't want to begotiate with them - probably thinking they could get them at a knock down value from the Administrators" You are missing the point that Southend Council were not hoping to get anything cheaper from anyone, they have already paid for the items. Thank god for IS0 9001 though because that makes contractors and subcontractors stick to standards which also include the supply of goods and services. halojump

5:40pm Thu 13 Dec 12

Andycal 172D says...

halojump wrote:
andy i quote you "The point you are missing is that they offered the goods to the Council at the same price and the Council didn't want to begotiate with them - probably thinking they could get them at a knock down value from the Administrators"
You are missing the point that Southend Council were not hoping to get anything cheaper from anyone, they have already paid for the items.
Thank god for IS0 9001 though because that makes contractors and subcontractors stick to standards which also include the supply of goods and services.
No, I didn't miss the point. Southend Council contracted Ibex to do the job. They went into administration without completing it.

Ibex contracted the supply of wooden items from GW and didn't pay for them.

GW still own the goods.

GW offered them at the price agreed with Ibex to the Council. The Council refused them. GW therefore took them back.

The only argument is over work so far completed by Ibex and how much the Council should still pay, or recover, from Ibex.

GW should not be involved at all. The Council don't own the goods, they never contracted for them.

Ibex never paid for them so they have no legal title to the goods.

So, they're still GW's who took them back.
[quote][p][bold]halojump[/bold] wrote: andy i quote you "The point you are missing is that they offered the goods to the Council at the same price and the Council didn't want to begotiate with them - probably thinking they could get them at a knock down value from the Administrators" You are missing the point that Southend Council were not hoping to get anything cheaper from anyone, they have already paid for the items. Thank god for IS0 9001 though because that makes contractors and subcontractors stick to standards which also include the supply of goods and services.[/p][/quote]No, I didn't miss the point. Southend Council contracted Ibex to do the job. They went into administration without completing it. Ibex contracted the supply of wooden items from GW and didn't pay for them. GW still own the goods. GW offered them at the price agreed with Ibex to the Council. The Council refused them. GW therefore took them back. The only argument is over work so far completed by Ibex and how much the Council should still pay, or recover, from Ibex. GW should not be involved at all. The Council don't own the goods, they never contracted for them. Ibex never paid for them so they have no legal title to the goods. So, they're still GW's who took them back. Andycal 172D

5:49pm Thu 13 Dec 12

Nebs says...

How can a firm go skint doing council contracts. It is common knowledge that councils pay way over the odds. How much had the council already paid Ibex, and what happened to the money?
How can a firm go skint doing council contracts. It is common knowledge that councils pay way over the odds. How much had the council already paid Ibex, and what happened to the money? Nebs

6:48pm Thu 13 Dec 12

halojump says...

The priory was finished before the administrators were called in and the council paid in full for works done.
No sympathy for G W as they have previously used IBEX and have touted their name as a refrence. They also listed on their website they are contractors for southend council, lets hope they are now black listed.

works handed to southend council on 11th june 2012 priory opened on 18th june 2012 IBEX first news of administration 21st June 2012.
G W carpentry have said they have been trying to get the money for 4 months and that would take them to mid august a full 3 months after the works were completed.
The priory was finished before the administrators were called in and the council paid in full for works done. No sympathy for G W as they have previously used IBEX and have touted their name as a refrence. They also listed on their website they are contractors for southend council, lets hope they are now black listed. works handed to southend council on 11th june 2012 priory opened on 18th june 2012 IBEX first news of administration 21st June 2012. G W carpentry have said they have been trying to get the money for 4 months and that would take them to mid august a full 3 months after the works were completed. halojump

7:24pm Thu 13 Dec 12

Max Impact says...

SBC paid IBEX in full, JW have to go to the administrators of IBEX as that is who contracted them to do the work, it was NOT SBC who contracted JW, so the council should not have to pay JW.
SBC paid IBEX in full, JW have to go to the administrators of IBEX as that is who contracted them to do the work, it was NOT SBC who contracted JW, so the council should not have to pay JW. Max Impact

10:06pm Thu 13 Dec 12

Antonius says...

You can bet yourself that somewhere along the line, somebody has done very well out of this.
You can bet yourself that somewhere along the line, somebody has done very well out of this. Antonius

8:21am Fri 14 Dec 12

Broadwaywatch says...

With the greatest of respect Max; in all truth how do you know that SBC paid IBEX in full or how can anyone not directly involved. I am not saying that they did'nt but are you or the the rest of us in a position to say that they did but so saying from my experience most councils across the country are slow to pay due to their particular systems which certainly affects the cash flow of a small business, the self employed etc.
With the greatest of respect Max; in all truth how do you know that SBC paid IBEX in full or how can anyone not directly involved. I am not saying that they did'nt but are you or the the rest of us in a position to say that they did but so saying from my experience most councils across the country are slow to pay due to their particular systems which certainly affects the cash flow of a small business, the self employed etc. Broadwaywatch

8:50am Fri 14 Dec 12

halojump says...

Antonius wrote:
You can bet yourself that somewhere along the line, somebody has done very well out of this.
in reality when this occurs noone wins.
GW will now never receive any money (possibly wouldnt if they hadnt done this either) and will have burned bridges with Southend Council, they have only incurred extra costs in removing the peices and wont be able to use anything as its bespoke.
Southend Council (basically US) have lost out as they will have paid in full now as they would have been obliged to and its the norm for councils to pay projects on completion together with any bonuses for early or on time finish. Now they are left with having to pay a company to remake the items to refit.
IBEX wasnt a 5 minute company they had been around a long time and Southend Council had used them before and GW had supplied them before in projects.
Southend Council cannot pay someone who makes demands like this, when southend council never employed them for THIS project. The sale of goods act is very complicated and many suppliers seem to think they can write on invoices that they have title of deed of goods until payment, they do have rights but these rights do not include entering a property and removing goods at will with out some court action or legal agreement. They didnt persue this course of action, possibly because case study shows that courts treat the end user in sub contractor desputes as a victim and do not grant an order.
Remeber a noone can enter a premises without a court order and if they do get the order they need to be accompanied by a bailiff.
In most case where an order is granted the customer is told to return the good to the supplier not the supplier attend the customer site.

So sadly no winner in this case apart from the person making the replacement parts.
[quote][p][bold]Antonius[/bold] wrote: You can bet yourself that somewhere along the line, somebody has done very well out of this.[/p][/quote]in reality when this occurs noone wins. GW will now never receive any money (possibly wouldnt if they hadnt done this either) and will have burned bridges with Southend Council, they have only incurred extra costs in removing the peices and wont be able to use anything as its bespoke. Southend Council (basically US) have lost out as they will have paid in full now as they would have been obliged to and its the norm for councils to pay projects on completion together with any bonuses for early or on time finish. Now they are left with having to pay a company to remake the items to refit. IBEX wasnt a 5 minute company they had been around a long time and Southend Council had used them before and GW had supplied them before in projects. Southend Council cannot pay someone who makes demands like this, when southend council never employed them for THIS project. The sale of goods act is very complicated and many suppliers seem to think they can write on invoices that they have title of deed of goods until payment, they do have rights but these rights do not include entering a property and removing goods at will with out some court action or legal agreement. They didnt persue this course of action, possibly because case study shows that courts treat the end user in sub contractor desputes as a victim and do not grant an order. Remeber a noone can enter a premises without a court order and if they do get the order they need to be accompanied by a bailiff. In most case where an order is granted the customer is told to return the good to the supplier not the supplier attend the customer site. So sadly no winner in this case apart from the person making the replacement parts. halojump

3:35pm Fri 14 Dec 12

Max Impact says...

Broadwaywatch wrote:
With the greatest of respect Max; in all truth how do you know that SBC paid IBEX in full or how can anyone not directly involved. I am not saying that they did'nt but are you or the the rest of us in a position to say that they did but so saying from my experience most councils across the country are slow to pay due to their particular systems which certainly affects the cash flow of a small business, the self employed etc.
Two points:

1. Would the administrators of IBEX not be after SBC if the gill had not been paid.

2, Read post by halojump at
8:50am Fri 14 Dec 12.
[quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: With the greatest of respect Max; in all truth how do you know that SBC paid IBEX in full or how can anyone not directly involved. I am not saying that they did'nt but are you or the the rest of us in a position to say that they did but so saying from my experience most councils across the country are slow to pay due to their particular systems which certainly affects the cash flow of a small business, the self employed etc.[/p][/quote]Two points: 1. Would the administrators of IBEX not be after SBC if the gill had not been paid. 2, Read post by halojump at 8:50am Fri 14 Dec 12. Max Impact

7:44pm Fri 14 Dec 12

Nebs says...

Max Impact wrote:
Broadwaywatch wrote:
With the greatest of respect Max; in all truth how do you know that SBC paid IBEX in full or how can anyone not directly involved. I am not saying that they did'nt but are you or the the rest of us in a position to say that they did but so saying from my experience most councils across the country are slow to pay due to their particular systems which certainly affects the cash flow of a small business, the self employed etc.
Two points:

1. Would the administrators of IBEX not be after SBC if the gill had not been paid.

2, Read post by halojump at
8:50am Fri 14 Dec 12.
Payments to IBEX include
37,214.24 1st June 2012
7,875.32 11th May 2012
172,888.39 11th May 2012
if you want more, they are all in the public domain, as is almost everything southend council spend.
http://www.southend.
gov.uk/downloads/dow
nload/551/our_spendi
ng_over_500
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: With the greatest of respect Max; in all truth how do you know that SBC paid IBEX in full or how can anyone not directly involved. I am not saying that they did'nt but are you or the the rest of us in a position to say that they did but so saying from my experience most councils across the country are slow to pay due to their particular systems which certainly affects the cash flow of a small business, the self employed etc.[/p][/quote]Two points: 1. Would the administrators of IBEX not be after SBC if the gill had not been paid. 2, Read post by halojump at 8:50am Fri 14 Dec 12.[/p][/quote]Payments to IBEX include 37,214.24 1st June 2012 7,875.32 11th May 2012 172,888.39 11th May 2012 if you want more, they are all in the public domain, as is almost everything southend council spend. http://www.southend. gov.uk/downloads/dow nload/551/our_spendi ng_over_500 Nebs

9:42am Sat 15 Dec 12

halojump says...

Nebs wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Broadwaywatch wrote: With the greatest of respect Max; in all truth how do you know that SBC paid IBEX in full or how can anyone not directly involved. I am not saying that they did'nt but are you or the the rest of us in a position to say that they did but so saying from my experience most councils across the country are slow to pay due to their particular systems which certainly affects the cash flow of a small business, the self employed etc.
Two points: 1. Would the administrators of IBEX not be after SBC if the gill had not been paid. 2, Read post by halojump at 8:50am Fri 14 Dec 12.
Payments to IBEX include 37,214.24 1st June 2012 7,875.32 11th May 2012 172,888.39 11th May 2012 if you want more, they are all in the public domain, as is almost everything southend council spend. http://www.southend. gov.uk/downloads/dow nload/551/our_spendi ng_over_500
this was a big contract not only funded by southend council but also by a huge heratige grant so its possible Southend Council only payed their part and the remainder came from the grant issuer.
Its a shame southend council dont push for charges of theft as then they could recoup the cost of the replacements from insurers or GW saving the council tax payer a drop in front line services.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: With the greatest of respect Max; in all truth how do you know that SBC paid IBEX in full or how can anyone not directly involved. I am not saying that they did'nt but are you or the the rest of us in a position to say that they did but so saying from my experience most councils across the country are slow to pay due to their particular systems which certainly affects the cash flow of a small business, the self employed etc.[/p][/quote]Two points: 1. Would the administrators of IBEX not be after SBC if the gill had not been paid. 2, Read post by halojump at 8:50am Fri 14 Dec 12.[/p][/quote]Payments to IBEX include 37,214.24 1st June 2012 7,875.32 11th May 2012 172,888.39 11th May 2012 if you want more, they are all in the public domain, as is almost everything southend council spend. http://www.southend. gov.uk/downloads/dow nload/551/our_spendi ng_over_500[/p][/quote]this was a big contract not only funded by southend council but also by a huge heratige grant so its possible Southend Council only payed their part and the remainder came from the grant issuer. Its a shame southend council dont push for charges of theft as then they could recoup the cost of the replacements from insurers or GW saving the council tax payer a drop in front line services. halojump

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree