• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Subcontractors removing fittings, furniture from Limerick School due to non-payments


SKELLY

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
3,120
This case seems to be ongoing. The contractors have been blocked from leaving the school grounds by parents.
PARENTS AT KILFINANE Primary School in Co Limerick are blocking the entrance to the school after subcontractors came to remove many of its fittings today claiming they were owed money from the main building contractor.
Crowds have gathered outside the school this afternoon after a number of subcontractors began removing shelving and bespoke furniture fittings from the school which has around 140 boy and girl pupils.
Principal Siobhan O’Flynn also said that the power has been disabled in the school and emergency lighting is currently being used.
Parents blockade Limerick school after builders remove fittings


It seems the contractor has not paid their subcontractors even tho the Dept of Education says they have already paid the contractor.
A number of subcontractors are owned around 20k each.
 

flavirostris

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
25,031
How long before O'Dea turns up looking for a cheap photo op.
 

Mitsui2

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
33,382
That's a terrible thing but after all the stories in recent years of subcontractors driven out of business by non-paying contractors I can't help feeling some sympathy for the subbies - I know personally of several even in my own area who were driven to the wall by unpaid bills from contractors who are still living high on the hog themselves.

I'd suspect that, as so often in this disaster, two sets of victims are left screaming at one another while in the background some clever b@stard sits grinning like a Cheshire cat.
 

niall78

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
11,285
Good for the subcontractors. You can't even price a job these days because the chances are the main contractor will run off with all the money for the subbies leaving them in a financial black hole.

It's not a subbies job to provide free fixtures, fittings and months of free labour to schools or any other building project, public or private.

It's about time laws were put in place to prevent the financial raping of subbies and to threat the perpetrators of such rape like the criminals they are.
 

brughahaha

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
15,293
Is that legal - once it is installed it is no longer theirs?
Yes , it is theirs , the invoice will clearly state that title doesn't pass until goods are paid for

While extreme it highlights the sheer lack of concern our political classes have for SMEs ...as a small company or sole trader you know you are powerless if someone decides not to pay you ..... Whats been done about it .... The same as upward only rents and crippling rates ..... Sweet FA

Our politicians are f@cking clueless and feckless about what it like to be a sme or sole trader in this country
 

Bleu Poppy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
4,570
Is that legal - once it is installed it is no longer theirs?
Most delivery notes / invoices contain a clause stating that the goods supplied remain the property of the supplier until paid for.

The basic Law of Contract states that benefit must accrue to both parties for a contract to be fulfilled, which obviously does not apply here.

I'm on the subbies side here.

Given the number of school, and other, projects that have been abandoned because the principal contractor has gone to the wall, the government will have to look at making provision for serious levels of Bonds to be put in place to ensure satisfactory completion and that sub-contractors are paid for their goods and services.

Surely, though, in this instance, the standard clause is in place in respect of retention of a percentage of the contract price (usually c.5%) and that this money could be used to pay the subbies.
 

niall78

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
11,285
Nobody is saying that its a subbies job to provide free fittings etc. Let them go and take goods from the main contractor if they want to throw their weight about. What a shower of bullies they are to barge into a school and start to removing firedoors and other fittings.

They should be broken at the wheel. Financial raping of subbies, me hole!
Sorry mate you don't seem to have a clue about what has happened to thousands of subbies throughout this recession.

Maybe the school or state department should have employed a reputable main contractor or architects and engineers that could have overseen the job properly instead of letting the sub-contractors get robbed of ten of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of Euro putting the livelihoods of them and their staff in jeopardy.

They aren't bullies, they are recovering stolen property and will only realise a fraction of what it is worth. The labour cost of fitting the equipment is gone and in reality probably the jobs of those that the subbies employed.

You seem to condone theft and blame the victim for trying to salvage at least some of the value of his stolen goods.
 

Maximilian

Active member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
240
Yes , it is theirs , the invoice will clearly state that title doesn't pass until goods are paid for
As far as I am aware it is far more complicated than above. The school Board of Management will have made a contract with the Main Contractor. This will probably have been the Short Public Works Contract. Section 11.1 of the contract states: The Contractor must ensure that goods and materials for the Works become the property of the Employer on the earliest of the following
  • when they are delivered to the Site, if owned by the Contractor
  • when they are incorporated in the Works
  • when the Employer makes any payment for them.
Therefore, as far as the school is concerned the items are the property of the school and the sub-contractor does not have a right to remove the fittings from the site. Unfortunately it is not that simple. For example, if the school paid the main contractor for the fittings but the main contractor did not pay the sub-contractor then where does the ownership of the fittings lie? Whilst the contract is clear, it is not clear that the main contractor, if he didn't pay the sub-contractor (with whom the school do not have a contract), was in a position to assign ownership to the school of the fittings.....It's a mess, to be honest.
 

RobertW

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
20,483
They aren't bullies, they are recovering stolen property and will only realise a fraction of what it is worth. The labour cost of fitting the equipment is gone and in reality probably the jobs of those that the subbies employed.

You seem to condone theft and blame the victim for trying to salvage at least some of the value of his stolen goods.
The property was not stolen as the main contractor was paid.
 

Kevin Ryan

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 20, 2012
Messages
329
Sorry mate you don't seem to have a clue about what has happened to thousands of subbies throughout this recession.

Maybe the school or state department should have employed a reputable main contractor or architects and engineers that could have overseen the job properly instead of letting the sub-contractors get robbed of ten of thousands and possibly hundreds of thousands of Euro putting the livelihoods of them and their staff in jeopardy.

They aren't bullies, they are recovering stolen property and will only realise a fraction of what it is worth. The labour cost of fitting the equipment is gone and in reality probably the jobs of those that the subbies employed.

You seem to condone theft and blame the victim for trying to salvage at least some of the value of his stolen goods.
Just to be devil's advocate here, I'm not sure why the school should suffer trespass, loss and disruption because of the crappy credit control of some subcontractors.

Contractual retention of title is normally ineffective when goods have been incorporated with others and are difficult to take away. So it's not at all clear the subbies have an entitlement to unscrew stuff, especially when it's on private property and there are children around. Just saying... (ETA: what Maximilian said)
 

Tea Party Patriot

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
11,557
That's a terrible thing but after all the stories in recent years of subcontractors driven out of business by non-paying contractors I can't help feeling some sympathy for the subbies - I know personally of several even in my own area who were driven to the wall by unpaid bills from contractors who are still living high on the hog themselves.

I'd suspect that, as so often in this disaster, two sets of victims are left screaming at one another while in the background some clever b@stard sits grinning like a Cheshire cat.
You are certainly correct about the number of sub-contractors who have been hit hard. An awful lot got caught very badly by developers as well.

I don't really know enough about this case to comment though, as in was it the sub-contractors or the main contractor who supplied the goods that are being removed?
 

Truth.ie

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
28,077
I saw this happening in my hometown.
Team of bricklayers turned up with sledgehammers and brought a newly built 3 storey pub down to ground level.
Brick by brick in under a day.
 

potholedogger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
1,238
This case seems to be ongoing. The contractors have been blocked from leaving the school grounds by parents.

Parents blockade Limerick school after builders remove fittings

?
It seems the contractor has not paid their subcontractors even tho the Dept of Education says they have already paid the contractor.
A number of subcontractors are owned around 20k each.
Why are Principal Contractors paid without evidence they paid their subcontractors?
 

potholedogger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
1,238
As far as I am aware it is far more complicated than above. The school Board of Management will have made a contract with the Main Contractor. This will probably have been the Short Public Works Contract. Section 11.1 of the contract states: The Contractor must ensure that goods and materials for the Works become the property of the Employer on the earliest of the following
  • when they are delivered to the Site, if owned by the Contractor
  • when they are incorporated in the Works
  • when the Employer makes any payment for them.
Therefore, as far as the school is concerned the items are the property of the school and the sub-contractor does not have a right to remove the fittings from the site. Unfortunately it is not that simple. For example, if the school paid the main contractor for the fittings but the main contractor did not pay the sub-contractor then where does the ownership of the fittings lie? Whilst the contract is clear, it is not clear that the main contractor, if he didn't pay the sub-contractor (with whom the school do not have a contract), was in a position to assign ownership to the school of the fittings.....It's a mess, to be honest.

Much depends on the terms of the contract between Principal contractor and the subcontractor!

A supplier or subcontractor is a fool if they do not have a rampala clause where in they retain ownership of materials until they are paid for!

It is reasonable for an Architect to require proof that previous certificates which include subcontractors works have been settled by the Principal contractor?
 

potholedogger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
1,238
There have been cases in law where the client had to pay twice for the same materials. Once to the principal who did not pay the subby and one to the subby who retained ownership until paid!
 
Top