Olympic Village contractor faces winding up petitions
Legal action taken by a number of creditors in the Irish High Court
A petition seeking the winding up of the Olympic Athletes Village contractor P Elliott has been lodged in Ireland.
The action was brought by recruitment firm MCR Perssonnel, trading as the MCR Group, which claims it is owed €1.8m by the construction firm.
The Irish Times reports that MCR seeks to have P Elliott put into liquidation on grounds it is insolvent and unable to pay its debts.
The Irish High Court adjourned the matter for two weeks yesterday. A number of other trade creditors such as William Cox Ireland and Oran Precast have already lodged petitions seeking the winding up of the firm.
Subcontractor OMC engineering has served a 21 day notice on the company seeking a payment of €100,000 for work completed on several projects.
P Elliot was awarded a £30m contract to build plot N14 of the Athletes Village and works are due for completion in August.
A spokesperson for the Olympic Delivery Authority said:
“Following discussions with P Elliott, a way forward has been agreed by both parties to ensure that the work on one of the 11 residential plots in the Olympic Village will be completed.
“Construction work across the wider Olympic Village site is firmly on track.”
Related Articles
- Galliford Try rows with subbies over athletes village
28 October 2011
- Lend Lease to complete halted Olympic village block
27 May 2011
- Olympic housing blocks late
20 May 2011
Have your say
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign InDesktop Site | Mobile Site
Readers' comments (8)
Why were they appointed? If the correct checks had been carried out why was the risk taken with tax payers money? This is happening all to much, any project funded by tax payers money should only ever be awarded to a sound company.
There are good and bad contractors. Tthey in turn were under so much pressure to lower the costs - the ultimate blame to me is the Olympic Authority (like most owners these days) demanding construction budgets to come in well below value.
But they clearly were not the cheapest, when they go under the cost to finish the project will be higher, then there will be the fall out with all the other companies and people owed money, some of which will probably go the same way. Who ever dealt with the due diligance has failed and should be held accountable.
I hate main contractors, your position and bias against contractors is clearly on display with your comments .
It seems to me, many of you are not getting your head around the hit the Irish Construction industry has taken, it has been totally decimated.
A few years back, the balance sheet of this and other firms were very stong, probably better than many of the firms working on the Olympics currently.
The destruction of the Irish Construction industry is one of the saddest things to watch. The bankers continue to get thier bonuses, even in Ireland and now they are taking out established firms, one by one until only a few will remain.
IT is full of hyprocracy too, the Battersea Powerstation Development talked about in a positive light in this very mag is being led by a firm with a billion in debt only being kept alive by the Irish taxpayer yet they are talked about as if they are Land Securities.
Spreading rumours about contractors is very dangerous and only makes a difficult situation worse.
I work in ADR and advise countless sub-contractors on better practices. Even with my long track record of witnessing and experiencing supply chain abuse I find the user name "I hate main contractors" highly offensive and frankly childish.
To suggest that every contractor out there is a subbie basher is seriously stretching the truth and your attitude is not helping as Patrick states.
Without proper, verifiable information anything we discuss here is purely speculation and it should be kept in that context. How do we know the "correct checks" were not carried out and that "they were clearly the cheapest", no to mention that "whoever dealt with the due dliigence has failed and should be held accountable"?
Do you know this all for a fact or as I have said simply speculating? I suspect the latter and in this case would caution you that your remarks could land you in hot water. You cannot post whatever you like on social forums about companies and individuals with impunity.
By all means have your say but for the sake of fairness if your going to have a go then you should only give opinions on what you know about for fact.
I think the fact the job was underbid is well documented, and regardless of where the company concerned is from and there previous finanical status, before employing them due diligance should be carried out to avoid this. Yosof i find your views offensive, as someone who clearly profits from un reasonable behaviour you have produced a whole paragraph of waffle to really say " where are the facts". As you receive your fees on the back of others problems spare a thought for people down the supply down who loose everything in situations like this.
Any contractor failure is a tragedy; the immediate response is often to throw blame around but an outsider can never straightaway really know the, often multifarious, cause. Unfortunately the nature and timescale of construction projects mean that a company validly assessed as 'a good risk' by a client at the start of a project may turn into 'a basket case' before its end. Cash flow is the driving force in this industry; for instance, unexpected bad debt, on a different project, can lead to a snowball effect as managers try to make up the loss; whilst an appeal to their bank to help 'in the short term' may have the opposite effect as the bank tries to protect its own situation and may even reduce the existing overdraft facility.
"I hate main contractors" - it must be nice with your anonymity to sit there and spout utter nonsense and abuse. If you have such angry views and what appears to be inside knowledge, perhaps you would have the guts to declare them openly instead of hiding behind a ridiculous user name? I think that you do not know what you are talking about, that is very clear. As you say where are the facts?
As E J Wood says "any contractor failure is a tragedy" I am sure we can all agree on that, but you have no real evidence other than a real hatred of main contractors to back up your childish vitriol.
You have absolutely no knowledge of ADR, me or what I do and how many supply chain members I have helped to not only recover monies due to them but to understand why it happened and how to avoid the situation in future. Of course I charge for this, I'm a business, thats what businesses do and I am not going to apologise for that.
I author articles and white papers that are freely available and have been internationally acclaimed as a plain speaking bible on how to properly bid and value works. If you feel things are heading towards dispute then there is even free advice for that too.
I am a passionate advocate of better project and cost controls but your infantile outbursts really add nothing of value. I suggest you grow a pair and declare your real intentions. My guess is you are a subbie who feels they have been bashed? My advice to you and any subbie who feels that way is to get proper advice before signing contracts, use proper processes and systems. If you don't know what you're doing then employ people who can help, this cost will be a fraction of what you may lose if things go bad.
My business is there to help contractors avoid these types of issues. I am a specialist in this area, much like a specialist trades person knows his stuff. I often use the analogy - I wouldn't attempt to install the M&E in a building so why do unqualified subs try and run the commercial elements of a contract and risk those same profits Mr Angry gives me a hard time about?