Re-cladding

Moderators: moderator, musicalteapot

San Juan
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:41 pm

Re: Re-cladding

Post by San Juan » Thu Mar 19, 2015 5:33 pm

The prices revealed on Monday were much higher than anticipated and we had ben led to believe no lease variation would be required.
The work done by our surveyor has been disappointing.
Professionals and consultants appointed to this project have not performed well so far.
We now appear to have a solicitor who knows what he is doing and a surveyor who is better equipped to deal with this project.
The consultant who advised on surveyors was Brian.
On Monday night when a leaseholder mentioned this he was firmly told by Brians partner that we should all move on now.
I agree wholeheartedly, lets move on , but hopefully that standard will be applied to everyone as we haven't got time for point scoring.
It is great that all leaseholders have been encourage to sign the lease variation urgently.
It is even better that Brian has prices which sound extremely encouraging and that these are being discussed with the board .
I agree we must keep pressure on the board , they are answerable to us, but it is not our job to keep pressure on the new surveyor. It is the boards job and theres alone. Interference from any other source will not be helpful.
GCS gave a very good account of themselves, handling the meeting very well, and the board members who spoke showed they had a thorough knowledge of the situation.
The prices were bad, but personally i left the meeting feeling optimistic.
Lets hope those with the pull, all pull together now for the sake of Wellington Close leaseholders.
Waltonwatcher
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Re-cladding

Post by Waltonwatcher » Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:59 pm

@ San Juan.

If Peter has a recent quote you have to wonder why he has this? He is not acting on behalf of residents or the board. Who has he been contacting during the tender process?? If so what implications has this had on the quotes you received?? This is highly worrying and very unprofessional.

If these are the 2010 quotes then they will be way out of date and meaningless. Quotes received have to be varified and cover all aspects required for the work to go ahead. They would also need to include VAT and insurance for the job. Plus the company would need to be turning over 50 million plus. You can't risk a small firm taking on a huge project like this. What if the firm goes under??

I don't believe the high quotes were the result of a poor board of directors. From what you say it appears they know exactly what they are doing. The high quotes are more likely because the 2 firms did not want to do this project. Not suprising with all the interference from residents. Plus the comments made on here.

It does appear that the lease variation is requred. Again i suspect this was down to bad advice from a third party advising the board. Remember none of the board probably have experience in a huge building project like this.

It seems to me the previous surveyor was simply too small to take on this project and for this reason struggled. This was a very poor decision.

Going forward the board need to clear out those that are just on the board to cause disruption and then start over doing everything by the book. An architect would be good this time round. Maybe even a project manager with real experience in large projects?
JonFromWellington
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:16 am

Re: Re-cladding

Post by JonFromWellington » Fri Mar 20, 2015 11:21 am

Here are my thoughts after the meeting & having spoken to a few fellow flat owners & now 2 directors of the boards.

Firstly, I was v impressed with our board, esp. Callan & Gareth who gave a very good account of themselves on the stage. Was also v pleasantly surprised with GCS - Greg & Gene are v knowledgeable & professional people.

Concerns:

- Whatever we think of Adair, they & the contractors wrote to us in Feb saying 'if you want this project to go ahead there must be no more interference from individuals'. This Brian guy, the former consultant with all the inside info, responded by then getting quotes from a company no longer involved but still that the other contractors know very well & work with. No wonder the prices were unaffordable when the market was dealing with that level of interference.

- It was said at the meeting theres a history of Brian getting cheap prices on his own but when a surveying firm goes for the same quote, they get much a higher price, and there must be many, many reasons why - liability insurance, professional analysis etc. Apparently GCS asked Brian for his quotes to give to the new surveyor right after the meeting, & even though he has been running around Wellington Close demanding that everyone immediately puts pressure on the board to follow up his quotes, today is now Friday & GCS still have not received those quotes. Why?

- Brian is rightly saying everyone should sign the lease variation. Correct. But Ive now discovered that the people that support him - the woman on the board who didnt sit with the board at the front & asked the ridiculous question 'does this multi million pound project need a surveyor?'- have not signed the lease variation. Why?

Brian - it is clear you passionately want this work to go ahead. So do I. I don't care about your past mistakes in overruling the board and the leaseholders to choose Adair but Please speak to your supporters who are not signing this lease variation ( do they even want the work to happen ? ) & please let the new surveyor work on this without any more interference. We cannot afford more financial & time delays. Adair have said they & the contractors were reading the posts on this forum so also please show some discretion in what you type - revealing information & negativity can also lead to price rises & other unforeseen problems.
peterstreet1599
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Re-cladding

Post by peterstreet1599 » Fri Mar 20, 2015 1:43 pm

Jon

We have read your response to the meeting.

The charge of interference is completely unfounded.

It was Adair's brief to include the original 3 contractors in the tender process. I had nursed these contractors for years to keep them on board. I was shocked when I found they had not tendered. I contacted two of them who were still interested, and meetings were arranged with the full approval of the board, as detailed in the minutes of 19th July 2014. The meetings were attended by myself, Callan, GCS and Adair, as you heard Callan say at the meeting. It was agreed that both firms would now quote for the job. One contractor produced a quote for the September AGM as requested. It went unacknowledged. The other quote petered out as Adair did not follow up. I also approached another contractor to see if they were willing to quote, and I passed all their details to Adair who again did not follow up.

That is the extent of my so-called interference.

The quote I referred to at Monday's meeting was the one received by Adair prior to the September 2014 AGM. I have not been out and got any more quotes since my three in 2010.

Harley Curtain Wallers have washed their hands of the project, but I have asked them to re-consider and they have agreed to leave their quote on the table.
No-one apart from myself and the Commercial Manager at Harley was aware until Monday night that I had asked them to re-consider, therefore this could not possibly have affected the tender process.

My position has always been clear and I have always recommended to the board that the only way to get this job done at an affordable price is to recognise that 95% of the work will be done by one contractor. We should therefore ask that contractor to take on principle contractor responsibilities and act as main contractor. This is the basis for the current Harley quotation. The strategy is to eliminate the main contractor's margin and reduce the scope of works to those works that can be completed by the curtain wall contractor. This still gives us the full curtain wall package, together with the roof, the soffits, balcony balustrades and all entrance doors and windows. The project should be carried out on a Design and Build contract on a like for like scheme.

The only chance we have of getting this project done is to adopt this strategy. The reason you have got high prices is because Mullalley believe that we have no other option but to employ them, and they have actually been running the show and dictating to Adair. The higher quote from Bennetts is a red herring designed to make Mullalley's price look reasonable.
Bennett's price is getting very near to actual re-building costs.

In my opinion, the reason the project has been described as sensitive is because Mullalley have insisted on being the preferred or even favoured contractor, and have made it clear that any attempt to get competitive quotes would not be tolerated, and they would walk away from the job. All other contractors have been manoeuvered out of the job. This is not a healthy situation for the leaseholders. Mullalley were the only contractors that Adair had and they were terrified of losing them.

I am doing everything I can to get this project at an affordable price. I am getting fed up with the constant criticism, and if I walk away the project won't happen.

If the board of directors hire a new surveyor who hires an architect and institutes a new tendering process and goes out to main contractors again we will end up in a year's time in exactly the same situation that we were in in 2008 and again on Monday night.

Let me remind you that the price in 2008 was £80K per flat.

Let me repeat myself. We have to go for a Design and Build contract, like for like scheme, reduced scope of works, Curtain Wall Contractor taking on the whole of the contract as Main Contractor and eliminate layers of profit margins.

The reason that Harley's price prior to the AGM did not comply with the tender documents was because it was never intended to. It was an alternative strategy.

Any price I obtain is a genuine quotation with a comprehensive and detailed specification including all preliminaries and guarantees.

GCS e-mailed me on Tuesday night to ask if I would give them a copy and I have replied saying I will get the quote in writing to them some time next week.

I shall be advising the board once again to adopt the above strategy.
WellingtonCloseOwner
New User
New User
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 1:00 pm

Re: Re-cladding

Post by WellingtonCloseOwner » Fri Mar 20, 2015 3:26 pm

If the board of directors hire a new surveyor who hires an architect and institutes a new tendering process and goes out to main contractors again we will end up in a year's time in exactly the same situation that we were in in 2008 and again on Monday night.
I attended the board meeting on Monday night. It appeared to me Wellington close has been following Brians suggested direction of "Design and Build" since he got his quotes in 2010 and were advised/pushed to go with Brians prefered surveyor Adair, after a meeting in 2013 where the majority voted for the other Surveyor, in order that the appointed surveyor followed Brians directions.
Brian accepted on Monday he was involved in this process right upto the Tender, spending 2 weeks going over the specification before it went out to tender, subsequently none of his 3 contractors came up with a price based on the Specification he helped create :shock: .

I am aware based on his own submissions on this forum Brian is a Carpenter/Joiner. I would like to know what other qualifications he has that gives him the expertise to dictate to Surveyors how this project should be handled and what liability he has should his direction come unstuck? Why are Directors allowing him to dictate this whole process again after the first attempt failed?

Brian is now advising we go down the same "Design and Build" direction again with a different surveyor. I am concerned that having followed Brians guidance to go with Adair, who either are clearly out of their depth or caught up in the politics of following a direction/price that was not achievable based on the quotes achieved by Brian (mentioned as close as in a meeting in 2013), we are wasting more time and money. Are we not flogging a dead horse if we do this?

I am in no doubt that Brian has put a lot of effort into this project as i am sure other individuals have too, with all good intentions. And i thank them all for this but is it not time to reflect, stand back and look at what went wrong and consider a new strategy/direction with a qualified Surveyor being asked to propose the best way forward for a cost effective solution to this project?
San Juan
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2015 4:41 pm

Re: Re-cladding

Post by San Juan » Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:54 pm

Fantatsic Brian that you are obtaining a written quote to pass to the board.
When you have please let GCS ; The Board and the professional surveyor get to work on it .
As has been said, interference from any outside party after that including you, will not help.
You have done loads of work and made a magnificent contribution over the years, if you are sincere about your love of the building and your desire to help us poor leaseholders (I am sure you are) then its time to let your baby leave home. Thanks
Waltonwatcher
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Re-cladding

Post by Waltonwatcher » Sat Mar 21, 2015 3:03 am

This is the thing that worries me Peter.

You have a tender process which could include up to 8 firms. From what you have said it sounds like you were privately discussing prices with 3-4 of them for years? So the surveyor is rather undermined in the tendering process. How can a tender process be fair if you are contacting 3-4 of the firm for years? How is that fair on the other firms bidding to do the work?? I think you selected this surveyor hoping you could manage them through the whole process. What is the point in hiring a surveyor if you intend to try and do the job for them? This has cost each resident at least 1-2k. Does that not worry you? Do you see how your actions probably caused many of the firms to drop out? In fact the tendering got to the point where it appears one of the firms bidded expecting to be only firm going for this work. The tendering should of been done on a level playing field. It could also be many of the firms dropped out due to your actions. Unless you can provide the emails to prove otherwise?

As for your quotes. If you truly had proper quotes that covered all aspects of the works then why have you not shown these to anyone? From what Jon suggests neither the board or the manageing agent have seen these. Until someone apart from you has seen the quotes how can we believe they even exist??

I think you need to be more open and honest with everyone here and not hold back on information that may have helped this project move forward.

I just wonder what might of happened if you had hired another surveyor and left the tendering wholly to them. Oh well you are where you are. It's the residents I feel sorry for as this is becoming an expensive cash burn.
peterstreet1599
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Re-cladding

Post by peterstreet1599 » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:04 pm

Walton Watcher

I don't really feel like replying to you, but you are so far off the mark and so ignorant of the facts, that I have to respond, lest anyone should take any notice of what you say. Please look at all the posts I have written on the matter. I am obliged to tell you what is common knowledge to anyone concerned with the project.

1. My quotes received in 2010 could not be acted upon due to long delay with lease variation
2. 2013 surveyors taken over project as we planned. The 3 quotes are passed to them to be used as the basis for the tender documents.
3. Adair are now dealing with the project and they send tenders out to 8 contractors including the original 3. Nothing to do with me. They only got 2 back. I did not privately discuss 3-4 quotes.I was asked to obtain quotes by the new RTM Co in 2008 and did so. This was all prior to the much more recent tendering process.
4. The quotes do exist. I have copies. Adair have copies. The Board have copies. They are available to any person entitled to see them.
5. I never dictated to the surveyors. I let them proceed in the way they thought best.

I don't know who you are, but you've got it all wrong. You don't know the history and you don't know the facts. Nobody should take any notice of you.
peterstreet1599
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Re-cladding

Post by peterstreet1599 » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:51 pm

WellingtonClose owner

I'm getting rather fed up replying to constant criticisms, but I have to, otherwise people might believe what you have written.

I got the quotes in 2010 and it was agreed that I would stand down when the surveyors took over. I passed these quotes to the surveyors, who used them as the basis for for their tender.

Part of their brief was to use a Design & Build contract.

Their preferred method of proceeding & handling the project was to increase the scope of works & do all the work under the umbrella of a main contractor. This was also the view of the Board, that we should do all the work that was required to be done at Wellington Close at the same time.

This was against my advice. I had advised to restrict the scope of the works to a specialist contractor who would assume principle contractor responsibilities, so we do what we can afford and cut out the main contractor's margin. I have said this many times and it is extremely tedious to keep repeating myself. I did not tell Adair how to do their job. I was advisor only. If I had had the executive power that you seem to think I had, I would have told the surveyors and the board to adopt the same strategy I had previously adopted.

However, they went out to tender. The existing contractors did not tender because of the increased scope of works, which was outside their remit. So I stood back and hoped for the best.

When the very high quotes came in at the end of June I once again advised the board to return to the original strategy, and we had meetings with 2 of the original contractors. I got them back to the table with the full approval of the board. We now have a quote from one of them which is affordable and we should be looking for more.

Design and Build is not the issue, this does not lead to increased costs. The problem is whether we use a main contractor and subcontractors, or a specialist contractor only. I've explained this very clearly in earlier posts and I don't want to go over it again.

My attempt has not failed. The strategy adopted by Adair and the board has failed. What we need to do , as you say, is get a new surveyor, sit down with them, tell them the history and agree the way forward.

I'm annoyed that you ask for my qualifications. I'm a time-served carpenter and joiner. I've been in the business for 45 years. I've had my own building firms and run large projects as a foreman. I've been dealing with architects and surveyors all my life and have a very wide theoretical and practical knowledge. I am a Fellow of the Institute of Carpenters, which requires a large body of excellent work over many years to qualify.

What are your qualifications to give advice to me?

I regret recommending Adair, but I realised on 30th June that I had made a mistake and advised the board accordingly. I told the board at the end of September that Adair were a disaster for Wellington Close and they should be sacked. (all contained in e-mails)

The board supported them and continued employing them. I made a mistake with Adair, but I am admitting it, unlike many others who are just trying to pass the buck.

You are criticising me with the benefit of hindsight
peterstreet1599
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Re-cladding

Post by peterstreet1599 » Mon Mar 23, 2015 5:32 am

Jon

-
Brian is rightly saying everyone should sign the lease variation. Correct. But Ive now discovered that the people that support him - the woman on the board who didnt sit with the board at the front & asked the ridiculous question 'does this multi million pound project need a surveyor?'- have not signed the lease variation. Why?
You named these two people when you first posted this. The moderator took the actual names out, but did not say he had edited it. I have asked him, and that was his reply.

Which of the two directors you spoke to gave you this information?

He/ she or they are breaching their code by doing so and must be reported.

The other directors wish to know who they are.
peterstreet1599
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Re-cladding

Post by peterstreet1599 » Mon Mar 23, 2015 7:23 am

San Juan wrote:Fantatsic Brian that you are obtaining a written quote to pass to the board.
When you have please let GCS ; The Board and the professional surveyor get to work on it .
Thanks
Why are the board asking for a quote which they have already got? It was sent to them in time for the September AGM

With their usual secrecy, they and Adair just didn't tell the leaseholders about it.

They like keeping things to themselves, except when it comes to revealing to leaseholders who has and hasn't signed their lease variation forms.
Waltonwatcher
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Re-cladding

Post by Waltonwatcher » Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:21 am

Sorry that you feel this way about me Peter. I leave it up to those that read my posts if they think they should listen to me or trust your word. When 1 person tells you you are wrong you might ignore it. When 4-5 people suggest your wrong then you have to listen.

From what I have read I think everyone seems to admit Adair were a mistake. I think the board held with them on the belief Adair had 2 quotes lined up. Getting 2 quotes would be better than restarting the whole tender process. The board have to try and get 2 reasonable quotes for the residents. I accept your 2010 quotes were out of date. 4-5 years is too long. Especially with the upturn in the housing market. It appears the board went with them based on your backing.

From what Jon wrote it sounded like you had new quotes at the meeting? Are these quotes the ones the board/Adair already had then? If so then you may have misled the residents at the meeting? You have to wonder if Adair had these quotes why they didn't use them? Which makes me think they did not cover all the work required. I suspect it would have been difficult for Adair as they were not directly dealing with this company directly. Would be very hard to include quotes that were not from their specification outlined in the tender process.

Beyond the 2010 quotes how many more did you manage to get? Are these all from one firm or do you have other quotes from other firms?? It sounds like you have been in discussion with at least 1 firm in last few months. Who knows what other quotes you may have secretly obtained? The tender process in my opinion was undermined by your actions here. You should of let Adair do their job.

Even if you did have a quote from a third party contractor how will the tribunal compare it when only 2 firms actually put in tenders to the surveyor spec. Privately obtained quotes might look suspicious. For the residents to be treated fairly the surveyor needs to have at 2 like for like quotes that show they are getting value for money. To date they do not have this.

If you are as truly skilled as you claim why are the board are no longer using you? There must be a reason for this? I tend to find those that shout the loudest have the most to hide.
peterstreet1599
Registered User
Registered User
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Re-cladding

Post by peterstreet1599 » Mon Mar 23, 2015 10:50 am

peterstreet1599 wrote:Walton Watcher

I don't really feel like replying to you, but you are so far off the mark and so ignorant of the facts, that I have to respond, lest anyone should take any notice of what you say. Please look at all the posts I have written on the matter. I am obliged to tell you what is common knowledge to anyone concerned with the project.

I don't know who you are, but you've got it all wrong. You don't know the history and you don't know the facts. Nobody should take any notice of you.
Waltonwatcher
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Re-cladding

Post by Waltonwatcher » Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:53 am

As i previously stated. I leave it up to those that read my posts if they think they should listen to me or trust your word. There is no need to spam that post repeatedly. The people reading this forum are not stupid. They just want to know that those trying to run this project going forward will do what is right by the residents.

You claim to be the only one capable of pulling this project off. The fact is there are many firms across the UK more than capable of pulling this cladding/roof project off without you. It would be better to go with someone with a proven track record of working on recladding projects like this worth many million. I really wonder what your true motives for running this project are? This whole recladding mess is riddled with bad decision that seem to have your footprint on them.

Moving on the project needs to:

Leave the project to hired professionals not related to residents/landlords or their partners/families.
Hire companies because that can do the job and not because individuals want to influence the project.
Inidivduals should not contact other firms while a surveyor is trying to obtain quotes. This just undermines the whole process.
The board and resdients need to act professionally if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Most importantly obtain 2-3 like for like quotes from a surveyor that will provide a suitable solution for the flats and offer quotes that offer value for money.

I suspect it will now be very dificult to use any of the contractors Peter has contacted to date. Can any resident truly trust or know what conversations/emails Peter has had with them? If you are not careful this project will get black marked by the industry as a project to avoid. I can truly see that happening. In which case you will have to hope a developer will buy the flats at a reasonable price.
Waltonwatcher
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Walton-on-Thames.org Senior Contributor
Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2015 1:30 pm

Re: Re-cladding

Post by Waltonwatcher » Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:07 pm

peterstreet1599 wrote:
San Juan wrote:Fantatsic Brian that you are obtaining a written quote to pass to the board.
When you have please let GCS ; The Board and the professional surveyor get to work on it .
Thanks
Why are the board asking for a quote which they have already got? It was sent to them in time for the September AGM

With their usual secrecy, they and Adair just didn't tell the leaseholders about it.

They like keeping things to themselves, except when it comes to revealing to leaseholders who has and hasn't signed their lease variation forms.
If you had stated to the board before the meeting what happened to quote from firm X that I provided to you on this date they could of responded to you to find out or state why that quote was not taken forward. Why did you not ask this at the meeting if you knew they had this quote? Instead apparently at the meeting you announced you had received some new quotes?? I really don't get the game you are playing here.

If you want to hold the board to account do it at the meetings and not conveniently ask the questions later on. Sorry Peter your actions leave a lot of questions to be answered.
Post Reply