08/07/2020 HLC case no. 21673900
CARDIFF COUNTY COURT STAYED CASES
From Highways England’s General Counsel, Tim Reardon:
The complaint in your email of 7 July at 15.24 (HLC case no. 21673900) relates to Kier Highways billing for repairs and cases that are currently before the Cardiff County Court. The issues you raise may well be addressed in the hearing into the two test cases which I understand is due to take place on 17 July. We await the outcome of those proceedings which may well have a bearing on your cases. In the meantime it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.
09/07/2020 to Highways England
HLC case no. 21673900 Complaint re S. Wales Stayed Matters & Use of Appendix A
To what 17/07/2020 hearing are you referring;? Please provide the Court’s references.
Oral submissions are due in S. Wales matters 16/07/2020.
Whether or not the issues I have raised are addressed at hearings is irrelevant. However, this appears unlikely and I believe you are aware of this. I refer to your email of 30/04/2020 and your statements:
- With regards to the cases which are currently before Cardiff County Court, you are not a party to this litigation.
- It would be inappropriate for us to comment further on matters which are currently subject to live proceedings in which you play no role.
Mr Bingham had no such reluctance to comment on live matters stating, with regard to the ongoing matters, currently before Cardiff County Court:
- These have been priced using the procedure set at Appendix A to Annex 23.
- This includes the cases before Cardiff County Court to which you refer.
The above is false. I am reviewing 15 such matters and in not one has the Appendix A methodology been employed. That Mr Bingham has misrepresented facts concerns me.
Kindly demonstrate how Mr Bingham’s statement is true by reference to ‘defined costs’ (£) and use of the TPCO (%). To simplify this, to assist, I refer you to an Area 9 matter:
|Date of loss||24/10/2016|
|Kier Ref||GC\0 27071|
|Kier invoice #||14671|
The above claim also involves:
- Equipment rates – spreadsheets of DCP rates one at least of which I understand Kier now say has been disposed of; not kept for the Court or for accountancy purposes
- 1.5x uplift on AIW’s who we understand do not incur such a charge i.e. this appears to be a fraudulent aspect.
On the one hand, Alex Bingham comments further on matters which are currently subject to live proceedings, on the other, when I challenge the statements, you adopt a selective approach and refuse to respond. Making false statements then citing sub judice to evade justification is unacceptable.
I also note your failure to provide the recently discovered schedules of DCP rates and the delaying tactics engaged. On the one hand, you explain that a schedule of rates (withheld) existed but is now unavailable despite it being pertinent in multiple Court matters, to include some before S Wales. More about this can be read here
In the absence of a detailed response by close of business tomorrow, I will present my concerns to the Court directly. It has taken you 2 months for you to respond, to my complaint, originally submitted 07/05/2020 – registered users read the Alex Bingham complaint here.