Kier Claims Concerns

As Highways England’s lackluster consideration of our concerns results in a dismissive response more than a year after we submit evidence to KPMG, we highlight more obvious exaggeration.

Under the nose of Highways England seemingly with their consent, Drivers, Fleets and Insurers are presented overstated bills – ‘Staff Costs‘ and ‘TM Programmer‘ examples.


Of KPMG an MP says “I wouldn’t trust you to audit the contents of my fridge” with regard to the Carillion collapse – Independent.

Whilst we originally understood Grant Thornton had been instructed, 11/2017, KPMG were appointed to audit Kier Highways Area 9 but has this stalled, stopped or been shared?  The outcome appears predetermined and to have been leaked.

06/2018 – ‘KPMG’s audit work unacceptable, says watchdog‘.


Area 9 Rates, exaggeration & misrepresentation – click here to view an example of charges.


09/2018

Read about ‘the principles to be followed when calculating the maximum amount to be claimed for damage to Crown Property when the provider is pursuing a claim against any Third Party to recover the costs involved in the name of the employer’ – how they are not complied with and not enforced by the Public Authority click here

Systematic overstatement by contractors working for HE when billing Third Parties (drivers, fleets and insurers):

In July 2014, HE and Kier Highways Ltd (Kier) entered into a contract which sets out how a Third Party was to be charged – the MAXIMUM. But, since that day:

  • Kier has not complied with the process
  • HE & Kier has kept the process secret.

But, now the formula is known:

  • HE are preventing the calculation by withholding required data
  • HE / Kier are misrepresenting facts to TP’s and the Courts

08/2018


Kier –  the maximum calculation process AIW’s the UK’s most expensive operatives? Kier Time Line of charges & events

 

 

 

 

 


  • 07/2014 Kier Highways Ltd (‘Kier’) took on Area 9 (West Midlands) for Highways England Company Ltd
  • The contract was made publicly available, the Annexes to the contract placed on-line, but an Appendix was not:
  • Within ‘Appendix A to Annex 23’ is a formula setting out the process by which the MAXIMUM a third party (driver, fleet or insurer) is to be charged if they damage the highway.

But, Since the commencement of the contract:

  • Kier have not complied with Appendix A
  • Highways England have not monitored the situation or turned a blind eye
  • Highways England have claimed they have no sight of Kier claim data – but  do
  • Neither party has referred to the Appendix
  • 1,000’s of claims have been invoiced and paid that are not compliant with the contract

Coincidentally, the ‘protection’ Highways England built into the contract, the agreement to charge Third Parties ‘no more than’, was not followed by Kier from day one and Highways England kept it secret from those who they serve; the public.  The facts and evidence are here – Read more here.


June 2018 – Area 9 claim exaggeration concerns supported. Highways England Company Ltd’s (HECL) ‘commercially sensitive’ argument was rejected by the ICO who forced them to provide some rates they are charged by Kier Highways Ltd (KHL).  These rates, when considered in conjunction with Appendix A to Annex 23 of the Area 9 contract, a document kept secret for years, enable a Third Party (driver, fleet and insurer) to calculate what they should be charged. The rates can be found here

We await an explanation for KHL’s charges for their AIW operatives being from £66 to over £170 hour when it appears they should be less than £30 / hour.