Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Same here, mastic is also splitting and coming away from the surfaces it was applied to. Southwark council have continued to use Saltash. Surely if a company with a contract does not fulfill standards the contract should be annulled?

We had major works in out block over 4 years ago. I disputed the standard of the work for 2 years. It took me that long to get a resolution, which was them knocking ?1,000 off the ?20,000 bill. We are now being told that we have to buy new front doors as ours are no longer fire compliant - they were in 2015 - but the council now say that they aren't. So I feel another long winded dispute coming on.

It has taken them three months to reply to one email about it. I do feel for the staff, they are massively under resourced and funds are tight. But if the standard of work isn't good enough, they shouldn't be paying out for it or taking your money for it.

We had Saltash back last month to look at work they said they had done.Some jobs had not been finished eg door eased but edge not painted, downpipe brackets not fixed.I also showed them a window repair that was now worse than before repair.I also went over work that they said they had done eg 3 metres of pointing but they could not show me where ,there were other items as well.We were charged ?450 for surveys.The Final Account is due in September.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think this is a bit of a myth.  It's true that some of the current owners are pension funds (chiefly the Ontario Universities') but they're global outfits, big enough to know what they're about. As for ordinary UK pension funds, they mostly invest in publicly-tradeable stocks, which Thames no longer is (it's a private limited company, not a PLC), so even those that lazily track the markets by buying everything in the index won't be exposed as Thames isn't in any index. In other words, it's a lot less complicated than Thames, the Government or innumerable consultancies and PR outfits would like you to believe. In case, incidentally, the idea of a cooperative offends any delicate Thatcherite sensibilities, I'd argue that it fits the Thatcherite vision of a stakeholding democracy much better than selling tradeable shares to the public very cheaply. The public, despite their blessable cottons, are too easily tempted by the small but easy win (which is how they sold off their own building societies, preparing the ground for the credit crunch and then the crash) and, as became obvious after every privatisation before or since, their modest stakes inevitably end up in the hands of financial engineers whose only priority is to siphon off the assets and leave the husk to either go bankrupt or get "rescued" by the taxpayers (who thus get to pay twice for nothing). The root of that is the concept of "limited liability" which makes it all possible, but even the most nauseating free-market optimist would struggle to predict the demise of that.  
    • Repossession? Oh no, that's really sad 😢 
    • That's a really interesting possibility!
    • Noticed yesterday a reprocessing order on shop front door.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...