Council drops a clanger as new trucks fail weight limit test

A town hall spokeswoman said: “We are currently working with the supplier to address this issue

A town hall spokeswoman said: “We are currently working with the supplier to address this issue"

First published in News
Last updated
by , Geoff Barnes

WIRRAL Council bureacrats are facing a weighty dilemma after taking delivery last week of five new trucks custom-built to load motorised lawn mowers and hedge trimmers.

Staff were ordered to take the vehicles to a weighing station to check they did not exceed the legal limit with all equipment and a three-man crew on board.

And that's when they hit a major problem.

A source told the Globe: “Turns out they aren’t legal. They were about 300kg over.

“So the new vans – which cost at least £150,000 from Mercedes – plus the customised fitting out – are now sitting in the Cleveland Street depot doing absolutely nothing.”

A council spokesman said: “Before these five new vehicles were put into operation, as is right and proper, we carried out a series of checks to make sure they met the specifications we set when we ordered them from the supplier.

"When fully-loaded, we found that the vehicles slightly exceeded the 3.5 tonne weight limit we required.

“We are currently working with the supplier to address this issue and we hope to have the vehicles in service within the next two weeks once the required modifications have been carried out.”

The new vehicles are known as “beaver tail” trucks because they have a tilted ramp at the rear of the flat-bed to ease loading and unloading manoeuvres.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:45pm Mon 11 Aug 14

bigfoot says...

So who was the clown who got his figures wrong? Is this another carpet issue?
So who was the clown who got his figures wrong? Is this another carpet issue? bigfoot
  • Score: 8

8:03pm Mon 11 Aug 14

rover600 says...

Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts... rover600
  • Score: 12

8:05pm Mon 11 Aug 14

rover600 says...

In the real world this would be considered Gross Misconduct, time someone took responsibility for their actions at the town hall.
In the real world this would be considered Gross Misconduct, time someone took responsibility for their actions at the town hall. rover600
  • Score: 12

8:30pm Mon 11 Aug 14

uncatom says...

Professional bungler's, they wouldn't last a week in a real job in the real world, WBC Wirral Bungling Counsel.
Professional bungler's, they wouldn't last a week in a real job in the real world, WBC Wirral Bungling Counsel. uncatom
  • Score: 13

8:42pm Mon 11 Aug 14

Joeblogg85 says...

" Beaver Tail Trucks" stop it now. This is getting too easy! Only in Wirral.
" Beaver Tail Trucks" stop it now. This is getting too easy! Only in Wirral. Joeblogg85
  • Score: 7

9:47pm Mon 11 Aug 14

smabo says...

rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
[quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job. smabo
  • Score: 7

8:14am Tue 12 Aug 14

ThePieMan says...

smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
Do you really think a major car manufacturer would make a clanger as big as this? I highly doubt it.
[quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.[/p][/quote]Do you really think a major car manufacturer would make a clanger as big as this? I highly doubt it. ThePieMan
  • Score: 6

8:46am Tue 12 Aug 14

WirralAl says...

If the supplier has made a mistake the Council should demand that the supplier solves the problem and not pay a penny for the trucks.

If the idiots at the council have ordered the wrong trucks then the person who placed the order should at least be disciplined or removed from the position.

Surely the councils requirements should of been fully detailed and specified to ensure that what was ordered exactly meets the requirements.

The next big question is HOW MUCH WILL IT COST US TAXPAYERS for another WBC error!
If the supplier has made a mistake the Council should demand that the supplier solves the problem and not pay a penny for the trucks. If the idiots at the council have ordered the wrong trucks then the person who placed the order should at least be disciplined or removed from the position. Surely the councils requirements should of been fully detailed and specified to ensure that what was ordered exactly meets the requirements. The next big question is HOW MUCH WILL IT COST US TAXPAYERS for another WBC error! WirralAl
  • Score: 8

9:02am Tue 12 Aug 14

katryn says...

get a refund.
get a refund. katryn
  • Score: 2

9:55am Tue 12 Aug 14

Growl Tiger says...

I bet more care was taken regarding specification when ordering Mr B’s top of the range BMW.
I bet more care was taken regarding specification when ordering Mr B’s top of the range BMW. Growl Tiger
  • Score: 11

10:30am Tue 12 Aug 14

smabo says...

ThePieMan wrote:
smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
Do you really think a major car manufacturer would make a clanger as big as this? I highly doubt it.
Mercedes manufacture the engine and the chassis, the rest of it is built - supposedly to specification - by a different company. One of the specifications, of course, being not to exceed 3.5 tonnes when fully laden.

But yes, the Mercedes dealer is ultimately responsible for completing the order and I'm guessing they will be putting it right.
[quote][p][bold]ThePieMan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.[/p][/quote]Do you really think a major car manufacturer would make a clanger as big as this? I highly doubt it.[/p][/quote]Mercedes manufacture the engine and the chassis, the rest of it is built - supposedly to specification - by a different company. One of the specifications, of course, being not to exceed 3.5 tonnes when fully laden. But yes, the Mercedes dealer is ultimately responsible for completing the order and I'm guessing they will be putting it right. smabo
  • Score: 1

10:52am Tue 12 Aug 14

rover600 says...

smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
Simple: As we do daily in the real world:
1) What is the purpose of the vehicle,
2) What is the maximum loaded axle weight?
3) what is the load weight of what we want to put on it (Every mechanical item be it a tractor, mower, bus, car lowloader, articulated lorry has a known weight.

It's not rocket science to work out the load of the vehicles then add the weight of the operatives. and see if that is (well) below the maximum weight as opposed to being 'just over' No vehicle should be operating close to its maximum weight or speed!

I appreciate your question may of been asked out of no experience in procurement but anyone in such a position these should have been amongst the first questions asked especially with a spend of over £150,000! Only on establishing what you need a vehicle to do would you go and look for it and brief suppliers on, you'd also need to look at things like width as in is it wide enough so the load does not over hang or the opposite if you need to take it down narrow access roads...Above all you would risk assess the impact on your employees. This whole episode seriously goes beyond not finding out until after the money was spent that it is not (in effect) 'fit for purpose'....

my next comment is not sarcasm; I truly pray that you aren't part of the council procurement team.
[quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.[/p][/quote]Simple: As we do daily in the real world: 1) What is the purpose of the vehicle, 2) What is the maximum loaded axle weight? 3) what is the load weight of what we want to put on it (Every mechanical item be it a tractor, mower, bus, car lowloader, articulated lorry has a known weight. It's not rocket science to work out the load of the vehicles then add the weight of the operatives. and see if that is (well) below the maximum weight as opposed to being 'just over' No vehicle should be operating close to its maximum weight or speed! I appreciate your question may of been asked out of no experience in procurement but anyone in such a position these should have been amongst the first questions asked especially with a spend of over £150,000! Only on establishing what you need a vehicle to do would you go and look for it and brief suppliers on, you'd also need to look at things like width as in is it wide enough so the load does not over hang or the opposite if you need to take it down narrow access roads...Above all you would risk assess the impact on your employees. This whole episode seriously goes beyond not finding out until after the money was spent that it is not (in effect) 'fit for purpose'.... my next comment is not sarcasm; I truly pray that you aren't part of the council procurement team. rover600
  • Score: 4

11:01am Tue 12 Aug 14

piermaster says...

ThePieMan wrote:
smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
Do you really think a major car manufacturer would make a clanger as big as this? I highly doubt it.
As the blogger, said read the story again!!
[quote][p][bold]ThePieMan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.[/p][/quote]Do you really think a major car manufacturer would make a clanger as big as this? I highly doubt it.[/p][/quote]As the blogger, said read the story again!! piermaster
  • Score: 3

11:02am Tue 12 Aug 14

rover600 says...

smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
Can you not read the headline on the story? Does it read "Council Drops a Clanger....." Err Yes..... Does it say '"Council Supplier drops a clanger"? errrr No ...

If as you believe the error lies with the supplier then I'd love to see a statement from the council to that effect AND to get written confirmation that there are no further charges on top of the original invoice. What is quoted by a council official in the article is anything but that...
[quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.[/p][/quote]Can you not read the headline on the story? Does it read "Council Drops a Clanger....." Err Yes..... Does it say '"Council Supplier drops a clanger"? errrr No ... If as you believe the error lies with the supplier then I'd love to see a statement from the council to that effect AND to get written confirmation that there are no further charges on top of the original invoice. What is quoted by a council official in the article is anything but that... rover600
  • Score: 5

11:26am Tue 12 Aug 14

smabo says...

rover600 wrote:
smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
Simple: As we do daily in the real world:
1) What is the purpose of the vehicle,
2) What is the maximum loaded axle weight?
3) what is the load weight of what we want to put on it (Every mechanical item be it a tractor, mower, bus, car lowloader, articulated lorry has a known weight.

It's not rocket science to work out the load of the vehicles then add the weight of the operatives. and see if that is (well) below the maximum weight as opposed to being 'just over' No vehicle should be operating close to its maximum weight or speed!

I appreciate your question may of been asked out of no experience in procurement but anyone in such a position these should have been amongst the first questions asked especially with a spend of over £150,000! Only on establishing what you need a vehicle to do would you go and look for it and brief suppliers on, you'd also need to look at things like width as in is it wide enough so the load does not over hang or the opposite if you need to take it down narrow access roads...Above all you would risk assess the impact on your employees. This whole episode seriously goes beyond not finding out until after the money was spent that it is not (in effect) 'fit for purpose'....

my next comment is not sarcasm; I truly pray that you aren't part of the council procurement team.
Do you really think this wasn't done? Read the story again... the vehicle did not meet the specifications set by the council. And who discovered that by being thorough with their testing before starting to use it? The council transport team. It's a mistake and the fact it is being put right by the people who supplied the vehicles tells you all you need to know about who was responsible for that mistake.

And my next comment is not sarcasm either; I'm truly glad that your life is so carefree that this is your primary source of concern at the moment.
[quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.[/p][/quote]Simple: As we do daily in the real world: 1) What is the purpose of the vehicle, 2) What is the maximum loaded axle weight? 3) what is the load weight of what we want to put on it (Every mechanical item be it a tractor, mower, bus, car lowloader, articulated lorry has a known weight. It's not rocket science to work out the load of the vehicles then add the weight of the operatives. and see if that is (well) below the maximum weight as opposed to being 'just over' No vehicle should be operating close to its maximum weight or speed! I appreciate your question may of been asked out of no experience in procurement but anyone in such a position these should have been amongst the first questions asked especially with a spend of over £150,000! Only on establishing what you need a vehicle to do would you go and look for it and brief suppliers on, you'd also need to look at things like width as in is it wide enough so the load does not over hang or the opposite if you need to take it down narrow access roads...Above all you would risk assess the impact on your employees. This whole episode seriously goes beyond not finding out until after the money was spent that it is not (in effect) 'fit for purpose'.... my next comment is not sarcasm; I truly pray that you aren't part of the council procurement team.[/p][/quote]Do you really think this wasn't done? Read the story again... the vehicle did not meet the specifications set by the council. And who discovered that by being thorough with their testing before starting to use it? The council transport team. It's a mistake and the fact it is being put right by the people who supplied the vehicles tells you all you need to know about who was responsible for that mistake. And my next comment is not sarcasm either; I'm truly glad that your life is so carefree that this is your primary source of concern at the moment. smabo
  • Score: -1

11:30am Tue 12 Aug 14

smabo says...

rover600 wrote:
smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
Can you not read the headline on the story? Does it read "Council Drops a Clanger....." Err Yes..... Does it say '"Council Supplier drops a clanger"? errrr No ...

If as you believe the error lies with the supplier then I'd love to see a statement from the council to that effect AND to get written confirmation that there are no further charges on top of the original invoice. What is quoted by a council official in the article is anything but that...
Yes I did see the headline. The headline is unfair and misleading and I've told the reporter that.
[quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.[/p][/quote]Can you not read the headline on the story? Does it read "Council Drops a Clanger....." Err Yes..... Does it say '"Council Supplier drops a clanger"? errrr No ... If as you believe the error lies with the supplier then I'd love to see a statement from the council to that effect AND to get written confirmation that there are no further charges on top of the original invoice. What is quoted by a council official in the article is anything but that...[/p][/quote]Yes I did see the headline. The headline is unfair and misleading and I've told the reporter that. smabo
  • Score: 0

11:56am Tue 12 Aug 14

Natasha Eubank says...

Sadly, there is just no element of objectivity when it comes to Wirral Council anymore – This is not to say that the Council are not deserving of this as they are, to an extent, the creators of their own misery, but it appears to me that there is a cohort of people that use this website that have such entrenched views regarding the Council that they disregard facts in favour of criticism. This story does not represent a failing of the Council but rather it strikes me that the Globe have been irresponsible in the wording of the headline.
Sadly, there is just no element of objectivity when it comes to Wirral Council anymore – This is not to say that the Council are not deserving of this as they are, to an extent, the creators of their own misery, but it appears to me that there is a cohort of people that use this website that have such entrenched views regarding the Council that they disregard facts in favour of criticism. This story does not represent a failing of the Council but rather it strikes me that the Globe have been irresponsible in the wording of the headline. Natasha Eubank
  • Score: 5

12:14pm Tue 12 Aug 14

rover600 says...

smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
Can you not read the headline on the story? Does it read "Council Drops a Clanger....." Err Yes..... Does it say '"Council Supplier drops a clanger"? errrr No ...

If as you believe the error lies with the supplier then I'd love to see a statement from the council to that effect AND to get written confirmation that there are no further charges on top of the original invoice. What is quoted by a council official in the article is anything but that...
Yes I did see the headline. The headline is unfair and misleading and I've told the reporter that.
@Smabo Yep, every word that comes from our Council officials is the gospel truth isn't it? They've never been found wanting or spinning a line when 'found out'...Myself and others are wrong to challenge the statements given the headline or the story , perhaps 'The Whislteblower' who raised the story with The Globe was wrong to point out that the error is over by 300KG yet is described by a council official as 'slightly over' the weight limit... 300kg is NOT slightly over anything its circa 9% over its legal weight NOT safe operating weight i's suggest therefore the actual error is in the region of 15-20%.

As for my primary source for concern, hardly but in a democracy I have every right to express my views based on the facts as presented. Perhaps as you appear to be 'in the know' you will supply the confirmations (requested in my earlier comment) in a hard copy form as in actual invoice, actual original spec and confirmation that these changes (as you state are down to the supplier) won't result in further invoicing to the Globe so they can publish 'the facts', I'm sure they will delighted to and in absence of this evidence and information we can but assume the headline is correct no matter how misleading you believe it to be...
[quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.[/p][/quote]Can you not read the headline on the story? Does it read "Council Drops a Clanger....." Err Yes..... Does it say '"Council Supplier drops a clanger"? errrr No ... If as you believe the error lies with the supplier then I'd love to see a statement from the council to that effect AND to get written confirmation that there are no further charges on top of the original invoice. What is quoted by a council official in the article is anything but that...[/p][/quote]Yes I did see the headline. The headline is unfair and misleading and I've told the reporter that.[/p][/quote]@Smabo Yep, every word that comes from our Council officials is the gospel truth isn't it? They've never been found wanting or spinning a line when 'found out'...Myself and others are wrong to challenge the statements given the headline or the story , perhaps 'The Whislteblower' who raised the story with The Globe was wrong to point out that the error is over by 300KG yet is described by a council official as 'slightly over' the weight limit... 300kg is NOT slightly over anything its circa 9% over its legal weight NOT safe operating weight i's suggest therefore the actual error is in the region of 15-20%. As for my primary source for concern, hardly but in a democracy I have every right to express my views based on the facts as presented. Perhaps as you appear to be 'in the know' you will supply the confirmations (requested in my earlier comment) in a hard copy form as in actual invoice, actual original spec and confirmation that these changes (as you state are down to the supplier) won't result in further invoicing to the Globe so they can publish 'the facts', I'm sure they will delighted to and in absence of this evidence and information we can but assume the headline is correct no matter how misleading you believe it to be... rover600
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Tue 12 Aug 14

uncatom says...

Council go to supplier with the specifications for modification, this is what we want, suppliers go ahead produces vehicle modifications to said specifications, and delivers same, council takes said vehicle to weighbridge, as per operational and find it is overweight, as someone mentioned before too small an allowance margin, who's to blame ? mmm slightly overweight, heavy lunchboxes, full fuel tanks , how much is slightly?
Council go to supplier with the specifications for modification, this is what we want, suppliers go ahead produces vehicle modifications to said specifications, and delivers same, council takes said vehicle to weighbridge, as per operational and find it is overweight, as someone mentioned before too small an allowance margin, who's to blame ? mmm slightly overweight, heavy lunchboxes, full fuel tanks , how much is slightly? uncatom
  • Score: 2

12:56pm Tue 12 Aug 14

WirralAl says...

rover600 wrote:
smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
Can you not read the headline on the story? Does it read "Council Drops a Clanger....." Err Yes..... Does it say '"Council Supplier drops a clanger"? errrr No ...

If as you believe the error lies with the supplier then I'd love to see a statement from the council to that effect AND to get written confirmation that there are no further charges on top of the original invoice. What is quoted by a council official in the article is anything but that...
Yes I did see the headline. The headline is unfair and misleading and I've told the reporter that.
@Smabo Yep, every word that comes from our Council officials is the gospel truth isn't it? They've never been found wanting or spinning a line when 'found out'...Myself and others are wrong to challenge the statements given the headline or the story , perhaps 'The Whislteblower' who raised the story with The Globe was wrong to point out that the error is over by 300KG yet is described by a council official as 'slightly over' the weight limit... 300kg is NOT slightly over anything its circa 9% over its legal weight NOT safe operating weight i's suggest therefore the actual error is in the region of 15-20%.

As for my primary source for concern, hardly but in a democracy I have every right to express my views based on the facts as presented. Perhaps as you appear to be 'in the know' you will supply the confirmations (requested in my earlier comment) in a hard copy form as in actual invoice, actual original spec and confirmation that these changes (as you state are down to the supplier) won't result in further invoicing to the Globe so they can publish 'the facts', I'm sure they will delighted to and in absence of this evidence and information we can but assume the headline is correct no matter how misleading you believe it to be...
I agree you are correct. The whole point is to give your opinion and this Council never makes any mistakes that it will accept blame for. Could this be the start of another expensive investigation??

Possible it could be Smabo who placed the order as appears more than over defensive!

Did the supplier get it wrong or is it the award winning council?

How much will it cost us??
[quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.[/p][/quote]Can you not read the headline on the story? Does it read "Council Drops a Clanger....." Err Yes..... Does it say '"Council Supplier drops a clanger"? errrr No ... If as you believe the error lies with the supplier then I'd love to see a statement from the council to that effect AND to get written confirmation that there are no further charges on top of the original invoice. What is quoted by a council official in the article is anything but that...[/p][/quote]Yes I did see the headline. The headline is unfair and misleading and I've told the reporter that.[/p][/quote]@Smabo Yep, every word that comes from our Council officials is the gospel truth isn't it? They've never been found wanting or spinning a line when 'found out'...Myself and others are wrong to challenge the statements given the headline or the story , perhaps 'The Whislteblower' who raised the story with The Globe was wrong to point out that the error is over by 300KG yet is described by a council official as 'slightly over' the weight limit... 300kg is NOT slightly over anything its circa 9% over its legal weight NOT safe operating weight i's suggest therefore the actual error is in the region of 15-20%. As for my primary source for concern, hardly but in a democracy I have every right to express my views based on the facts as presented. Perhaps as you appear to be 'in the know' you will supply the confirmations (requested in my earlier comment) in a hard copy form as in actual invoice, actual original spec and confirmation that these changes (as you state are down to the supplier) won't result in further invoicing to the Globe so they can publish 'the facts', I'm sure they will delighted to and in absence of this evidence and information we can but assume the headline is correct no matter how misleading you believe it to be...[/p][/quote]I agree you are correct. The whole point is to give your opinion and this Council never makes any mistakes that it will accept blame for. Could this be the start of another expensive investigation?? Possible it could be Smabo who placed the order as appears more than over defensive! Did the supplier get it wrong or is it the award winning council? How much will it cost us?? WirralAl
  • Score: 1

1:01pm Tue 12 Aug 14

tiprat says...

I predict a flurry of FoI requests
I predict a flurry of FoI requests tiprat
  • Score: 4

1:56pm Tue 12 Aug 14

Joeblogg85 says...

Nearly as good as building the Oval swimming pool with only five lanes. Classic!
Nearly as good as building the Oval swimming pool with only five lanes. Classic! Joeblogg85
  • Score: 7

2:14pm Tue 12 Aug 14

smabo says...

WirralAl wrote:
rover600 wrote:
smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
smabo wrote:
rover600 wrote:
Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...
How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.
Can you not read the headline on the story? Does it read "Council Drops a Clanger....." Err Yes..... Does it say '"Council Supplier drops a clanger"? errrr No ...

If as you believe the error lies with the supplier then I'd love to see a statement from the council to that effect AND to get written confirmation that there are no further charges on top of the original invoice. What is quoted by a council official in the article is anything but that...
Yes I did see the headline. The headline is unfair and misleading and I've told the reporter that.
@Smabo Yep, every word that comes from our Council officials is the gospel truth isn't it? They've never been found wanting or spinning a line when 'found out'...Myself and others are wrong to challenge the statements given the headline or the story , perhaps 'The Whislteblower' who raised the story with The Globe was wrong to point out that the error is over by 300KG yet is described by a council official as 'slightly over' the weight limit... 300kg is NOT slightly over anything its circa 9% over its legal weight NOT safe operating weight i's suggest therefore the actual error is in the region of 15-20%.

As for my primary source for concern, hardly but in a democracy I have every right to express my views based on the facts as presented. Perhaps as you appear to be 'in the know' you will supply the confirmations (requested in my earlier comment) in a hard copy form as in actual invoice, actual original spec and confirmation that these changes (as you state are down to the supplier) won't result in further invoicing to the Globe so they can publish 'the facts', I'm sure they will delighted to and in absence of this evidence and information we can but assume the headline is correct no matter how misleading you believe it to be...
I agree you are correct. The whole point is to give your opinion and this Council never makes any mistakes that it will accept blame for. Could this be the start of another expensive investigation??

Possible it could be Smabo who placed the order as appears more than over defensive!

Did the supplier get it wrong or is it the award winning council?

How much will it cost us??
ODFO, Al, ODFO...
[quote][p][bold]WirralAl[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]smabo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rover600[/bold] wrote: Derrrrrrr so why wás this not checked prior to ordering them? Whoever placed this order along with their superior who surely should have checked the order given this was a huge spend over 100k should be fired, no ifs, ands or buts...[/p][/quote]How do you check something before it arrives? Read the story again... the delivered vehicle didn't meet the specifications of the order - the 'clanger' was on the part of the supplier not delivering the vehicle to the right specification and it was through the council checking the finished product thoroughly that the problem was discovered and now its being put right. But don't let facts get in the way of your slagging off decent people just doing their job.[/p][/quote]Can you not read the headline on the story? Does it read "Council Drops a Clanger....." Err Yes..... Does it say '"Council Supplier drops a clanger"? errrr No ... If as you believe the error lies with the supplier then I'd love to see a statement from the council to that effect AND to get written confirmation that there are no further charges on top of the original invoice. What is quoted by a council official in the article is anything but that...[/p][/quote]Yes I did see the headline. The headline is unfair and misleading and I've told the reporter that.[/p][/quote]@Smabo Yep, every word that comes from our Council officials is the gospel truth isn't it? They've never been found wanting or spinning a line when 'found out'...Myself and others are wrong to challenge the statements given the headline or the story , perhaps 'The Whislteblower' who raised the story with The Globe was wrong to point out that the error is over by 300KG yet is described by a council official as 'slightly over' the weight limit... 300kg is NOT slightly over anything its circa 9% over its legal weight NOT safe operating weight i's suggest therefore the actual error is in the region of 15-20%. As for my primary source for concern, hardly but in a democracy I have every right to express my views based on the facts as presented. Perhaps as you appear to be 'in the know' you will supply the confirmations (requested in my earlier comment) in a hard copy form as in actual invoice, actual original spec and confirmation that these changes (as you state are down to the supplier) won't result in further invoicing to the Globe so they can publish 'the facts', I'm sure they will delighted to and in absence of this evidence and information we can but assume the headline is correct no matter how misleading you believe it to be...[/p][/quote]I agree you are correct. The whole point is to give your opinion and this Council never makes any mistakes that it will accept blame for. Could this be the start of another expensive investigation?? Possible it could be Smabo who placed the order as appears more than over defensive! Did the supplier get it wrong or is it the award winning council? How much will it cost us??[/p][/quote]ODFO, Al, ODFO... smabo
  • Score: -2

2:55pm Tue 12 Aug 14

JohnON says...

Very sloppy reporting on the Globe's part.

Accuse the Council of dropping a clanger in the headline and then completely fail to justify or clarify the claim in the body of the article.

I cannot believe that this order would be anything other than a collaborative effort so, stabbing as wildly in the dark as everyone else seems to be, I'd say all parties bear some of the responsibility for the mistake.
Very sloppy reporting on the Globe's part. Accuse the Council of dropping a clanger in the headline and then completely fail to justify or clarify the claim in the body of the article. I cannot believe that this order would be anything other than a collaborative effort so, stabbing as wildly in the dark as everyone else seems to be, I'd say all parties bear some of the responsibility for the mistake. JohnON
  • Score: 8

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree