191129 Knights Plc Excessive Demand

Knights were appointed by Highways England.

29/11/2019  the charges increased from £13,008.15 to £15,437.29 because:

Highways England also claims interest on the loss from 31 July 2017 to the date of this letter of claim at the County Courts Act rate of 8% amounting to £2,429.14 and continuing at a daily rate of 2.85.

Highways England were demanding interest due to delays arising from their prevarication! The letter of claim set out the costs:

Labour – £7,172.59

35 x labourers were engaged for 167.5 hours at hourly rates ranging from £18.36 to £47.83, totalling £6,678.39. 7.40% uplift has been applied to this cost in the sum of £494.20.

Plant – £4,595.97

15 x plant were engaged for 99.5 hours at hourly rates ranging from £4.86 to £183.46, totalling
£4,279.30. 12.4 A 7.40% uplift has been applied to this cost in the sum of E316.67.

Materials – £1,239.60

2 x B03 standard beams were used at a rate of £81.84 each, totalling £163.68.
2 x B04 standard beams were used at a rate of £33.43 each, totalling £66.86.
78 x fish plate bolts were used at a rate of £0.39 each, totalling £30.42.
1 x expansion assembly was used at a rate of £90.58 each, totalling £90.58.
6 x special fish plates were used at a rate of £0.37 each, totalling £2.22.
9 x standard clamp plates were used at a rate of £0.99 each, totalling £8.91.
9 x intermediate posts were used at a rate of £8.37 each, totalling £75.33.
9 x M10x35 screws were used at a rate of £0.12 each, totalling £1.08.
4 x out of hours delivery charge was applied at a rate of £98.00 each, totalling £392.00.
3 x ST5 concrete were used at a rate of £106.50 each, totalling £319.50.
1 x bag of oil spill granules (18kg bag) was used at a rate of £3.61 each, totalling £3.61.
A 7.40% uplift has been applied to this cost in the sum of £85.41.

Knights further wrote as follows:

With regards to the above matter, please note the following:

1. We confirm that Highways England paid Kier Highways £13,008.15 in respect of this incident

2. The charges related to this matter have been detailed within our Letter of Claim dated 29 November 2019

3. Respectfully, your queries in relation to the delay of repairs are redundant. You will note the
High Court Judgement in Coles v Hetherton specifically stated:

“Events occurring after the infliction of the damage are irrelevant to calculating the diminution in value
measure of damages. Thus, subsequent destruction of the chattel, or a decision to delay repairs, or
an ability to have the repairs done at less than cost or for nothing will not prevent the claimant from
recovering the diminution in value of the chattel that has been caused by the negligence of the
tortfeasor.”

Damage

1. As highlighted within the incident management form indicates that the vehicle joined the A12 from the M25. The vehicle has struck the kerb on the traffic island and hit the central reservation barrier on the entry slip road. The call log also supports this stating that there were two hits.

2. The central reservation barrier was repaired on 10 January

3. The verge was repaired on 11 and 12 January. It was necessary for this work to be carried out over two nights, as the foundations had to be dug out and new concrete laid out.

4. With regards to the new beam, when this was installed, additional expansion joints were no longer required. This is not unusual

Incident Attendance

1. With regards to the AIW’s involvement, you will note he was requested to attend the scene. A police investigation was however ongoing at the time of arrival thus he was unable to assess the damage until the investigation was complete and access was granted by the police

2. The NCC operators were engaged to continuously liaising with TFL and Area 5, as well as dealing with updated requests from the police. These operators would have continued with these tasks beyond the time the AIW was at the scene following the instalment of Traffic Management and coordinating the removal of such.

3. Please note that CCTV footage relating to this incident is not available.

Staff

1. Any staff who are not operatives do not complete manual timesheets. There are various aspects of work that they are involved in such as reporting, planning and programming, requisition of materials, arranging quotes, processing the incident and claim to name but a few. As you are aware, should this matter proceed to litigation, witness evidence can be provided for such costs. In the meantime however, please find attached, a list of staff roles explaining the works carried out.

2. The 2 AIW’s noted are responsible for this area of the network, therefore any incidents that occur are passed over to them (when they are unable to attend the incident itself) to verify the information passed, and to prepare necessary paperwork as well as arranging the programming and planning, providing stats prior to the repair to ensure the repair can be carried out safely. The only time their time is recorded on manual timesheets is when they attend an incident itself, all other time is recorded directly to Kier’s internal accounting system. You will again note however that should this matter proceed to litigation, a witness statement can provide further evidence in relation to these costs

General Charges

1. (name 1) is a Kier Supervisor. Please note his name and signature has been provided on the timesheets you have already received. For example, you will note on page 1 of attachment 9b, the name signature and date has been provided, evidencing attendance.

Photographs

Jpeg images direct from Kier have been provided for the repair.

Time Sheets

These have previously been provided within the final cost emails In light of the above, please confirm your position as to quantum.