Crack Report Options

[Simon Kirby]

So anywho, two years on, £tens of thousands spent, and still no sign of the report being published. What gives?

It's a technical report into the hydro-geology of the park in the months after the cracks appeared, what possible legitimate reason is there for witholding it? There can't be any criticism of the Council commissioning the report, there was apparent damage and it was at least possible that the dewatering was to blame - but why have the Council refused to publish the report? It's not legal advice, it's just a technical report, they'd have to make it available to the other side if they litigate so there's no possible reason for sitting on it - unless it undermines their position and shows that they have subsequently acted wrecklessly.

The Town Councl need to publish, and they need to say how much money they've spent on this business. Come on NWN, it's time to ask some difficult questions, two years is long enough.

[Andy Capp]

Hear, hear. Why the length of time?

[John C]

Could it be because it was wholly down to SI and there dewatering and the longer WBC leave it the more chance the have of forgetting it. But as it crops upon here every now and then they must realise that this will not go away and they might have to bill SI for the damages caused, then again the report might be inconclusive and they are typically clueless as to what to do next. IMHO

[Newbelly]

...they'd have to make it available to the other side if they litigate..

No they would not.

[Weavers Walk]

Could it be because it was wholly down to SI and there dewatering and the longer WBC leave it the more chance the have of forgetting it. But as it crops upon here every now and then they must realise that this will not go away and they might have to bill SI for the damages caused, then again the report might be inconclusive and they are typically clueless as to what to do next. IMHO

If it was pointed out that that whole area is dropping / moving / subsiding due to the earth resettling, and that was caused by the de-watering, and if that was added to the fact that the whole of the Parkway Shopping Experience is not piled onto bed-rock (they went down nearly 40 meters and still didn't hit bottom - so they just gave up), how much do you think Buildings Insurance would be for those business and residential properties? Think they'd be able to sell anymore 'apartments' once the insurance companies put two and two together?

[Simon Kirby]

No they would not.

You're right of course. What I should have said was that they would have to make it available to the other side if they used it in evidence, presuming of course that it supported their position. Refusing to publish it suggests to me that the report doesn't support their contention that the de-watering was responsible for the cracks. That wouldn't in itself be a problem, but if they continued to spend public money persuing a claim which their own factual report suggests was baseless then that would be a cause for concern, and more so if the only reason for continuing with the trouble and expense is to avoid embarrassment.

I also wonder that the report should now be made available under the Environmental Information Regulations as I don't now see that the Council have a exception to allow them to continue to withold the report. Again, one for the Newbury Weekly News to persue I suggest.

[Simon Kirby]

Could it be because it was wholly down to SI and there dewatering and the longer WBC leave it the more chance the have of forgetting it. But as it crops upon here every now and then they must realise that this will not go away and they might have to bill SI for the damages caused, then again the report might be inconclusive and they are typically clueless as to what to do next. IMHO

The particular local government bumkins involved in this snafu are the Town Council. WBC are an entirely different set of local government bumpkins.

[Andy Capp]

You're right of course. What I should have said was that they would have to make it available to the other side if they used it in evidence, presuming of course that it supported their position. Refusing to publish it suggests to me that the report doesn't support their contention that the de-watering was responsible for the cracks. That wouldn't in itself be a problem, but if they continued to spend public money persuing a claim which their own factual report suggests was baseless then that would be a cause for concern, and more so if the only reason for continuing with the trouble and expense is to avoid embarrassment.

I also wonder that the report should now be made available under the Environmental Information Regulations as I don't now see that the Council have a exception to allow them to continue to withold the report. Again, one for the Newbury Weekly News to persue I suggest.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone was waiting for a time-out period, rather like you experienced, where certain claims have to be submitted by a certain date. Perhaps someone is sitting on this until there is no legal recourse possible.

I don't understand your logic that the perhaps the report doesn't show Parkway as being the issue. If it doesn't, why not say so? If it did, however, I could see reasons to hold on.

[Simon Kirby]

I wouldn't be surprised if someone was waiting for a time-out period, rather like you experienced, where certain claims have to be submitted by a certain date. Perhaps someone is sitting on this until there is no legal recourse possible.

Possible. I believe Statute of Limitations gives seven years to bring a claim for property damage, and three years for defamation.

I don't understand your logic that the perhaps the report doesn't show Parkway as being the issue. If it doesn't, why not say so? If it did, however, I could see reasons to hold on.

If the report shows conclusively that de-watering was the cause of the damage then the first thing the Council would do is send it to Costain to support their request for money to put the matter right, and if they've sent it to Costain what possible reason would they have in not letting the public see it?

The only reason that I can think of for not publishing the report is that they haven't sent it to Costain, and the only possible reason I can think of for not sending it to Costain is that it doesn't support the Council's contention that de-watering was the cause of the alleged damage.

If I remember right the Council made some rather un-guarded comments at the start of this snafu stating unequivocally that the de-watering was the cause of the alleged damage. It is possible that Costain took offence at that slight of their reputation and the unfounded and malicious insinuation that they were responsible for damage to both public and private property, and if when the report came in the Council found themselves unable to substantiate their allegations they may very well be reluctant to admit their error and face the personal financial consequences. This is why I believe they are sitting on the report.

If the report shows that de-watering was the cause of the damage then I guess it could be imprudent to publish it for fear of defaming Costain.

[Andy Capp]

If I remember right the Council made some rather un-guarded comments at the start of this snafu stating unequivocally that the de-watering was the cause of the alleged damage.

I don't remember that.

[badmummajamma]

Possible. I believe Statute of Limitations gives seven years to bring a claim for property damage, and three years for defamation.


If the report shows conclusively that de-watering was the cause of the damage then the first thing the Council would do is send it to Costain to support their request for money to put the matter right, and if they've sent it to Costain what possible reason would they have in not letting the public see it?

The only reason that I can think of for not publishing the report is that they haven't sent it to Costain, and the only possible reason I can think of for not sending it to Costain is that it doesn't support the Council's contention that de-watering was the cause of the alleged damage.

If I remember right the Council made some rather un-guarded comments at the start of this snafu stating unequivocally that the de-watering was the cause of the alleged damage. It is possible that Costain took offence at that slight of their reputation and the unfounded and malicious insinuation that they were responsible for damage to both public and private property, and if when the report came in the Council found themselves unable to substantiate their allegations they may very well be reluctant to admit their error and face the personal financial consequences. This is why I believe they are sitting on the report.

If the report shows that de-watering was the cause of the damage then I guess it could be imprudent to publish it for fear of defaming Costain.

Without referring to my ropey old copy of McNaes, I'm pretty sure you can't defame a company as large as Costain. In general, you can't defame a company anyway, but if it were a small company of say three or four people or a sole trader, then the "defamation" of the company would lead to defamation of the individuals by association. I'm not sure that there is a cut off in terms of numbers - it comes down to a test of what is "reasonable" by a judge.

The argument being that it would be very difficult for a member of the public to identify and associate the defamatory statement with an individual at a large company. Of course, if the Town Council were naming individuals, or individual roles as directly responsible for the cracking and were then unable to substantiate it, then that would be a different matter. That would be defamation on the basis that it is bringing that person into professional disrepute and therefore disparaging them in their trade or profession.

This is why journalists like to lay into big business - there's very little legal retort (for defamation anyway) - although the publication of erroneous information that led to a share price decrease would probably get you told off a bit.

I suspect therefore that the the NTC "bumpkins" just want to save themselves from embarrassment, rather than financial penalty.

[Jayjay]

I don't remember that.

The council said it was removing the water that caused the cracks, Costain said it was the dry weather. Link to story -

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2010/old-news-article-14075

[Simon Kirby]

I don't remember that.

I recall a line-item in their accounts to the effect of "some cost or other due to the de-watering". I posted it here at the time but it's a bit of an effort finding it. I have some recollection of councillors being quoted in the NWN too - I wonder if the NWN might like to dig back and see what was reported. It's quite possible that after two years I'm misremembering what was said.

[Simon Kirby]

The council said it was removing the water that caused the cracks, Costain said it was the dry weather. Link to story -

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2010/old-news-article-14075

Hmm, the implication is clearly that the dewatering was the cause of the alleged damage, but there isn't actually a quote from the Town Council saying that in so many words. I thought they'd said it, but maybe I'm mistaken.

[Simon Kirby]

Without referring to my ropey old copy of McNaes, I'm pretty sure you can't defame a company as large as Costain. In general, you can't defame a company anyway, but if it were a small company of say three or four people or a sole trader, then the "defamation" of the company would lead to defamation of the individuals by association. I'm not sure that there is a cut off in terms of numbers - it comes down to a test of what is "reasonable" by a judge.

The argument being that it would be very difficult for a member of the public to identify and associate the defamatory statement with an individual at a large company. Of course, if the Town Council were naming individuals, or individual roles as directly responsible for the cracking and were then unable to substantiate it, then that would be a different matter. That would be defamation on the basis that it is bringing that person into professional disrepute and therefore disparaging them in their trade or profession.

This is why journalists like to lay into big business - there's very little legal retort (for defamation anyway) - although the publication of erroneous information that led to a share price decrease would probably get you told off a bit.

I suspect therefore that the the NTC "bumpkins" just want to save themselves from embarrassment, rather than financial penalty.

Thanks for that BMJ. Interesting bit in the Grauniad about it.

[Andy Capp]

Hmm, the implication is clearly that the dewatering was the cause of the alleged damage, but there isn't actually a quote from the Town Council saying that in so many words. I thought they'd said it, but maybe I'm mistaken.

I don't remember anything like that, although I know there was a lot of comment for a while, or perhaps it was a quote from a resident or something.

I seriously can think of a good reason for not publishing the report unless there is something unsavoury in it. Even if it were an interim report. Or perhaps there was something totally unexpected unearthed?

[Simon Kirby]

Or perhaps there was something totally unexpected unearthed?

Maybe they struck oil - awkward moral dilema for lib dems that.

[Cognosco]

Considering our Town Council's track record it does not bode well? I think it will be a safe bet after all this time that the local taxpayers are going to be out of pocket again though? Same as it ever was!

[Nothing Much]

"Same as it ever was"... Good tune.

I thought the builder's cracks would get more saucy.
Still Newbury is polite.
ce

[Simon Kirby]

"Same as it ever was"... Good tune.

Talking Heads?