Jump to content

SIC HQ - Whitehoose


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Looks likely we are going to have to pay to fix the Councils fock up with their sharn-Hoose and again nobody is accountable, no completion certificate what next? Common procedure my ass maybe for inco

Think you might find it's the council's own legal services department who overseen this lease agreement that now leaves them in this predicament without a leg to stand on, unless of course SLAP is fee

.....and in true SIC fashion, lets pay a cool £ 1/2 Million plus for absolutely sweet F.A!   http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2017/10/27/500000-rent-paid-empty-council-headquarters   Then, there's the c

I'm maybe thick but what obligation does the SIC have to keep paying the rent? Surely as landlords SLAP are breaching the tenancy agreement by not providing a suitable building in a good state of repair.

 

I hope the legal eagles no doubt on a hefty wedge themselves have a way of getting that money returned in the future.

 

To think of care homes & schools having their budgets slashed, to chuck £536,000 away is nothing short of sickening.

 

As to the new AHS it was certainly thrown up in a rush so lets hope it doesn't start falling apart bit by bit in the years to come.

Think you might find it's the council's own legal services department who overseen this lease agreement that now leaves them in this predicament without a leg to stand on, unless of course SLAP is feeling charitable! Another classic case of SIC management incompetence, More Turkey than Eagle I’m afraid! Certainly in the IQ department anyway, would be nice for once for someone to take some responsibility for their actions!

Edited by brecken
Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't put 10 6ft marine tanks on your floorboards and expect things to be hunky dory.  Likewise, if the rumours are true, you wouldn't put a load of filing cabinets or a fancy filing system on a floor without reinforcing it ... in other words, if the Tenant (the SIC) caused the damage, they would be under an obligation to pay the rent for whatever period was stated in the lease whilst repairs were being undertaken and might be liable too for the cost of said repairs.  One would hope they have had an independent structural survey done and also ascertained if they have any course of redress and also if there is a break clause in the lease.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm maybe thick but what obligation does the SIC have to keep paying the rent? Surely as landlords SLAP are breaching the tenancy agreement by not providing a suitable building in a good state of repair.

 

I hope the legal eagles no doubt on a hefty wedge themselves have a way of getting that money returned in the future.

 

To think of care homes & schools having their budgets slashed, to chuck £536,000 away is nothing short of sickening.

 

As to the new AHS it was certainly thrown up in a rush so lets hope it doesn't start falling apart bit by bit in the years to come.

Think you might find it's the council's own legal services department who overseen this lease agreement that now leaves them in this predicament without a leg to stand on, unless of course SLAP is feeling charitable! Another classic case of SIC management incompetence, More Turkey than Eagle I’m afraid! Certainly in the IQ department anyway, would be nice for once for someone to take some responsibility for their actions!

 

 

You get what you pay for I'm afraid, like in all public services. Lawyers etc in the real world are paid on productivity and results, so only the lazy and incompetent are content to churn out the mind-numbingly mundane tat a pubic body generates day after day, for a flat rate salary which they'll get regardless, even if they do nothing productive or worthwhile at all.

 

The few half decent ones public bodies manage to recruit early in their careers soon get sick of it, or get driven out by brain dead anal types senior to them, and move on to work in the private sector.

 

Whatever you think of privatization, there's much to be said for public bodies hiring in professional services from the private sector, who are hired, paid and fired according to competence and productivity only, rather than relying on an in house team the ruling core of which are inevitably the incompetent, unambitious deadbeats of their profession.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Lets see your proof of that......

the biggest problem as far as i can see with the whitehouse isit was built by contractors whos heads belong to the goat club ...they want as much money as they can screw out of the project ...the sis membership are also mostly goat club members so us the gullible public will fill their banks ....we cant have a falling out of bretheren can we   tut tut ..power rules 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
Look what the council are considering doing before they reopen their North Ness headquarters. They're looking to revamp the place when it's only a few years old, and it's been closed for two years because somebody got it wrong and built an unusable building. They haven't yet dealt with the idiot that got it wrong yet.

 

Aren't they finding a good use for the council taxes that we pay in year after year, month after month and week after week.

 

Can they justify wasting the money tht we pay in? Do they call it the Whitehouse or the #hitehouse?

 


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the landlord will be paying?

 

The landlord is Shetland Leasing & Property Developments Ltd, who are owned by the Charitable Trust. The Trust used to be part of the council but now are supposedly seperate, even though there are some councillors kept in as trustees. This makes me ask, if the council have such a strong link to the landlord of the *hitehouse, who is really paying the bill at the end of the day? You, me and everybody else through payment of council tax perhaps? 

Edited by George.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reconfigure - Making sure all the filing with tons of paper on board are all placed next to load bearers, along with all those coffee jars and piles of biccie packets.

 

Rejigging (to allow departments to collaborate more....) - God help us! They're bad enough when you have to tolerate the b/s from one at a time from their little own isolated utopian bubble, if they start ganging up together on folk they're going to be intolerable.

 

Having met the tender mercies of Housing and Social Services finest giving it their best efforts, along with a bit of back up from Finance, I'd not wish such an ordeal of torture on my worst enemy......Unless they are an SIC Manager, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

What am I missing here.

 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/16988-scott-calls-for-urgent-white-house-negotiations

 

Leaving aside for the meantime the whole argument whether or not the place bends in the wind and/or is the leaning tower of the North Ness, and taking it one step further back.....

 

The Whitehoose is the property of and was financed and built by SLAP. The SIC is merely the tenant/leaseholder of the said erection. Or at least thats the story that been consistently peddled to the public throughout.... So, how come the SIC are planning legal action against the contractor who built the place? The SIC, if they are nothing more than the tenant/leaseholder, as they've always claimed, have, and never have had any kind of relationship with the building contractor concerning the Whitehoose. What can they possibly be suing the contractor for, and on what grounds.

 

*If* the tenant/leaseholder relationship which the SIC claims is all they have, and ever have had with the Whitehoose, is accurate, surely any grievance the SIC have concerning what they've received in return out of that relationship, is with the building owner, SLAP, and nobody else, and any shortcoming in the building's performance should be a dispute between the building owner, SLAP, and the contractor. Not the tenant/leaseholder and the contractor.

 

It was bad enough to find out that the SIC were paying SLAP a cool £0.5 Million yearly for a building they couldn't occupy, but you blamed that on yet another bungle by SIC Legal for not making sure an appropriate clause was included in the lease agreement to cover such an eventuality. However, when you add this latest development by the SIC to them making those "rent" payments, apparently without protest, the evidence is starting to mount up suggesting that the SLAP Landlord/SIC Tenant "official" status of the Whitehoose may well be bogus, and the actual relationship in practice is something wholly different.

 

By continuing to make payments to SLAP as the SIC has, and now by planning to sue the builders, the SIC are behaving as if SLAP had provided the SIC with a loan/mortgage to finance the building of whatever the SIC wanted to build on the site, and to appoint whatever contractor they wanted to do it, and SLAP's 'ownership' only exists in the same way as a Bank/Building Society are 'owners' of properties they've provided mortgages on, by holding the deeds as security for the loans.

 

Like I said at the beginning, I'm probaby missing something, but on the face of it, the biggest scandal going on would not seem to be whether the place was designed/built to be fit for purpose, but just what kind of arrangement/relationship was concocted between SLAP and the SIC to make the building happen.

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole set-up is very odd, wrong even. They happily rob Peter to pay Paul and I just don't get it.

There are no clear lines drawn anywhere.  The half a mill is a bloody joke because it it our half a million they are handing over to themselves for a building they don't or can't use and it just sits there and sits there while they pay themselves money not to use it.

 

Like I said, I don't get it.  Not even slightly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...