Legal action is not being ruled out by the Isle of Wight Council as it tries to sort out problems with the Floating Bridge — or ‘Wight Elephant’ as some have dubbed it.
In a report to go before a committee next week, the council lays the blame squarely at the feet of the 2 companies involved in its design and build.
Ever since Floating Bridge 6 was installed on the River Medina in May 2017, it has faced a chequered service history — being pulled out of service for multiple repairs.
The latest suspension of the chain ferry is nearing its 7th week after what started out as scheduled maintenance, supposed to last 10 days, quickly became problematic when a major fault was found with the hydraulic system.
As reported by Island Echo last night, a date for the return of the floating bridge has still not been set.
A petition started in the last 2 weeks calls for an independent investigation into the ‘failed ferry service’ and has more than 2,000 signatures. You can see it here: https://www.change.org/p/iow-council-ceo-independent-investigation-into-cowes-to-east-cowes-chain-ferry.
Now, the Isle of Wight Council has received legal advice after the numerous performance issues the Floating Bridge has faced.
In a report going to the council’s corporate scrutiny committee on Tuesday 8th September, the council said the troubles ‘suffered’ by the vessel are ‘as a result of the failure of the two companies contracted to design and build the Floating Bridge to comply with the council’s requirements’ as set out in the contracts.
Before any court proceedings can be undertaken, the council has started talks with the builder and designer of the bridge, as set out in the contract’s pre-action procedures, in an effort to seek an appropriate remedy.
If the discussions do not conclude with a satisfactory remedy for the losses suffered then it is open to the council to issue court proceedings and seek to set right the matter, including any financial loss.
The council said:
“It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage while we seek to find a resolution.”
At a meeting of East Cowes Town Council last night, councillors said the Isle of Wight Council should send it back and ask for its money back and get a new one.
An update on the current state of the Floating Bridge is expected to be made before the end of the month (August).
It needs to be scrapped and not replaced!!!
Oh come on this is not just the builders fault.
So let me get this right, when I as an individual make a purchase and I get it wrong , I should lay blame in the designer and builder of the product. THE FACT IS; THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNCIL REAPS OF NEPOTISM AND THEIR ARE TOO MANY FAT-CAT SENIOR MANAGEMENT WHO WANT TO PUSH THE BLAME FOR THEIR OWN INCOMPETENCE. I HAVE SAID IT MANY MANY MANY TIMES ACROSS SOCIAL MEDIA OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS BUT I WILL SAY AGAIN “JOHN METCALFE (Chief Exec) SHOULD RESIGN , IMMEDIATELY, THERE HAS BEEN TO MANY F*** UPS UNDER THIS SO CALLED MANS MANAGEMENT. Put it this way if Mr Metcalfe was the managing director of a public limited company (PLC) The board of investors/chairman would’ve called for his resignation long before now , this man is clearly incompetent and treading water is he cannot even paddle , we as an island need a new chief executive and it needs to be clearly someone who knows what they doing.
Yea lets take too court….but use our money too do it!weve all been paying for the farce up till now.faboulous
*Yeah *to *to *fabulous
Knowing the incompotence of the council they will proably have some sort of clause within the contract that limits the maximun liability of the contractors to something like £1, and in addition they have to cover the contractors legal costs.
Would Ronnie Biggs have ‘sued’ the railway company, had he had gotten away with the ‘great train robbery’ if he had slipped on a banana skin on the station platform during the heist?
Think; the council will do nothing of the sort.
I expect that of the two companies involved one was working in metric and the other in imperial measurements.
What waste more of our council tax money
Hope they kept the receipt! What am I taking about all those Brown envelopes don’t require a receipt.
Ah, yes cash seems the preferred means of attracting staff in private, so, likely for the same reasons would still be the preferred method of other transactions using public money.
We can only guess the latter of course.
The lack of the ‘paper trail’ will be done to cut down on waste with Cllrs. being so green of course, so don’t expect to find too many receipts.
Considering ? Should be are taking legal action. An invesigation needs to be set up into the Councils dealings with the constant technical problems this floating lump suffers from.
What happened to the legal action from a couple of years ago? Nudge nudge wink wink?????
I expect the council has been monitoring public opinion quite closely for some time now and they’ve just recognised that this latest incident may well be the tipping point. I predict that, from now on, you will see councillors scurrying around distancing themselves from any involvement with the floating bridge while trying to cover their collective arses. Currently, the two companies are the ones getting all the blame but I bet the councillors are looking at their own ranks to see who they can make into a sacrificial lamb. Interesting times ahead, methinks.
Why didn’t they use an I.W. company ??
Haven’t we already been down this road with the builders/designer a short while after it was delivered and found to be a complete turkey? What’s different this time? Regardless, this administration hasn’t got the wherewithal to arrange a pi** up in a brewery, so no doubt this will be another dead end. Still as long as it can all be paid for by the taxpayer, this council wont actually give a sh*t.
The good thing about “considering” legal action is that the can play the “inappropriate to comment” card which effectively stops the council having to respond to criticism about their handling of the whole fiasco.
If past hostory is anything to go by this period of “consideration” could go on for some time, possibly several years.
I should blooming well think so! And not before time.
Build a bridge … least that won’t break down . The mainland have loads
They would probably build it upside down and sideways and then consider suing someone or something a decade later after they had already made of with the loot, whoops I mean profit.
Why should the council take legal action for the floating bridge they r the one’s that forked out tax payers money for it should be the public that should take legal action against the council and the ppl who built the floating bridge
Judicial review – a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.
It is the person who signed off on accepting the design of the bridge as final, who is ultimately responsible for this debacle. All considerations, such as angle of the landing areas, depths at low tide, noise etc should all have been known beforehand and as such in the final drawings for the new chain ferry.
Would it be possible to return the bridge to the people that made it. Then ask the team that built 2 Red jets to design a new one and get the people that built No6 to make the new one free of charge.
Wait a minute how can this be the builders fault they only build from the plans they are given. surely its down to the marine architect and the person/Councillors that can up with the design aren’t those the people responsible what about the person in charge of signing the thing off as fit for use. The builders construct from plans these plans approved by the iw Council so ultimately its down to the council and architects simple
If we can’t rely on the floating bridge in the height of summer, when we desperately need it, then what is the point of having one at all?
Couldn’t we have a bridge instead? It would ease the congestion significantly, wouldn’t break down, and would help those living and working in East Cowes too.
I bet they bought it from Alibaba. 😀
taking legal action is part of attempting to mitigate the losses incurred. it should not distract from the need to provide or remove this crossing service. lets not confuse the two. we’ve had far too much smoke and mirrors already
IOW Council don’t care, it’s our Council Tax money they have wasted on this badly designed piece of crap. If it wasn’t for the fact that a petition has now been raised to object and an investigation called for, the Council would have continued to plough our money into this obvious ‘white elephant’…..
The council is just as much to blame. It was they who accepted the design. All they needed to do was make a carbon copy of the old one. Infact did the old one need replacing at all, just a good overhaul?