Two sides to every story and I must reply to blatantly unfair comments.
The contract was awarded after a competitive tender, with a contract signed in the normal manner and timeframe, a Homeowners contract that we were later informed is notoriously vague and open to abuse by those with the inclination
As an initial cost saving measure, large elements of work were then excluded from our remit, with various trades and suppliers chosen, employed and directed by the client, and it was only these trades and suppliers that went on to cause confusion and delays to our schedule, having not been commissioned or ordered on time
Despite this and numerous other indecisions, HBL completed this project as required on time to allow occupation and subsequent attendance at a local school, working weekends and evenings at no additional cost to do so.
After occupation, only snagging and finishing of a few final tasks remained, as they were yet undecided or relied on materials supplied and sourced by the client, concluding these was then further delayed by restricted access of 2 days per week due to their work commitments, consequently the dispute only arose a full month after practical completion, and only then, when presented with a final account, which was already a conservative compromise, on receiving this draft proposal (not an actual invoice or demand for payment) we were told not to attend site further and only communicate via the Architect,
Six months later, to resolve this impasse we conceded via the Architect for a third party contractor to complete the remaining minor works using the ample funds still retained by the client, only upon finding this third party contractor difficult to employ, was this resolution denied by the client who then initiated arbitration themselves, admittedly HBL lost this arbitration, in hindsight due to being unfamiliar with litigation, we relied on informal communications with the Architect and never issued the technically required “ suspension of works” notice, direct to the client, which to the surprise of all was then considered more significant than HBL initially being denied access and payment, we were later urged by an advisor to appeal this decision, but decided to draw a line under the matter and move on, clearly the client has not.
In summary, those familiar with this dispute acknowledge that HBL went above and beyond what could reasonably be expected of them, for months we absorbed every cost incurred by last minute amendments, incorrect material deliveries and undertaking the grey areas between our responsibility and those others being employed. For decades, HBL has enjoyed an excellent reputation and good working relationship with its clients, this dispute being the one exception,
Perhaps it is more telling and beyond coincidental that the majority of those others directly employed by this client and also of previous good repute, from Architects to decorators, found themselves in a similar dispute