We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
ATS - I think it's orders from above as opposed to a civil servant's ignorance issue.
Got to agree with Big here unfortunately, it bears all the hallmarks of a civil servant simply being belligerant.
Easy to do when it's not your money and there's no real comeback on you.
I own a company, we have a couple of big PLC customers that I despise dealing with fortunately they are a small enough customer that if they both went it wouldn't sink us. I can only imagine haw unpleasant it is dealing with HM Gov as a customer.
Oh Mr big how very rude ( wink emoji)
Compromise we give them 35mm of gear cost to us and they get substantially more then they paid for and give us the cash , win win
Or her. Let's not be sexist here.
Most likely some clueless useless c.nt in the government thinking that contract law does not apply to him...
So theoretically, they replace £20m of kit, and then get their payments paid.
_______________________________________________________________
That looks like best case scenario to me. It's being suggest by others though that the real reason for the dispute is to avoid paying anything, but using a "not fit for purpose" excuse.
This seemed to have dragged on for sometime if it's simply no more than - "OK we'll replace it all - just agree to pay our invoices".
Perhaps the way forward is to tell the DHSC, ok we scrub the past, but in future no mate's rate for you, full whack from now on, whether it be a covid test or any other test, and you pay up front as you have a poor credit rating.
So theoretically, they replace £20m of kit, and then get their payments paid.
Tkr234 wrote:- Why are different posters stating different settlement figures,between app 19M to 70M.?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is cut and paste from the RNS this morning explaining the two figures. These figures include VAT.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Board has formed a judgment that, in accordance with the contractual terms, and if required, it should be possible to replace the product in dispute and a product warranty provision has been made accordingly. The Board's best estimate of the cost to replace is up to a maximum of £19.8m, the timing of any outflow is dependent on settlement of the dispute. If no settlement is achieved and legal action is required, the timing of any possible outflow will be extended.
It is possible, but not probable, that the DHSC's claim for a refund under the limited assurance warranty will be successful. The timing of any cash outflow is dependent upon the success of the claim and the terms negotiated for repayment. If the resolution of the claim is materially different from the Board's determination of replacing the product, the financial statements with regard to revenue and the provision for product warranty could be significantly impacted.
Of the Q4 2020 revenue, invoices amounting to £24.0m in respect of product delivered to the DHSC remain outstanding at the date of signing the financial statements and recovery of this amount is also dependent on the outcome of the dispute. In addition, after the year-end, a further £49.0m of product delivered and invoiced to the DHSC in 2021 remains unpaid and is now also part of the dispute. The unpaid invoices total £73.0m and include VAT.
Agreed, but that assumes they accept replacement product, which as discussed above doesn't seem to be the real reason for dispute.
At this point in time and being in this position I'd be inclined to offer the £17m as a credit against outstanding invoices and then walk away with circa £53m. Which effectively is what was suggested above. You'd quickly find out at that point what the agenda is and of they are trying to wiggle out of the entire responsibility. Until then it's a £70M dispute.
The issue really for us investors is this is all supposition, we don't really know the true details of the dispute. Which is frustrating.
Why are different posters stating different settlement figures,between app 19M to 70M.?
£70m in revenue to us, with a possible £17m costs to us...
NOVICE42 Wrote:-
Exactly
Give them there proxy 17m and tell them never pick up the phone and ask for top class products again , go **** yourselves were selling abroad . Maybe why I'm not incharge of anything ??
____________________________________________________________________________
The problem is though it's not £17M it's £70M in dispute.
Honestly, I hope it's not an oversupply trying to wriggle out of paying situation as IMO that's more likely to lead to litigation. Prolonging the SP pain.
My (admittedly limited) understanding of the Innova situation is the UK Gov have "tested" and approved it themselves, so if they were to very publicy denounce it they would be very publicly stating their own testing procedures are ineffective and not fit for purpose. That's just not going to happen is it.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out in hindsight that a "D Notice" or similar was issued to the media with regard to Innova. The almost complete and absolute lack of meaningful coverage on the subject stands out to me like a sore thumb.
What is especially annoying is the DHSC apparent happiness with the Innova LFT.
They don't seem to be trying to send back product or asking for a refund for their rubbish tests.
Unlike in the USA:
FDA recommendations:
Recommendations for Test Users, Health Care Providers, and Testing Program Organizers
Stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test.
Destroy the tests by placing them in the trash or
Return the tests to Innova using the FedEx return label that was included with the recall letter that Innova sent to customers.
Exactly
Give them there proxy 17m and tell them never pick up the phone and ask for top class products again , go **** yourselves were selling abroad . Maybe why I'm not incharge of anything ??
I just can't see there being problem with the product. Has any other customer BUT the DHSC had a problem with the product?...NO.
Smacks of incompetence and intransigence on behalf of the DHSC
NCYT have done MUCH more than most companies in the fight against COVID to supply cutting edge, reliable products.
DHSC are doing their best to seriously mess up one of their best suppliers.
NO, the Novacyt machines were validated by government and are in use elsewhere. I think it is just a matter of someone in the DHSC panic ordering a shed load of Novacyt point of care PCR machines and then deciding they don't really want or need them because they decided to buy cheap mass produced Chinese Innova LFT tests which are fast, cheaper and dont need trained staff to operate. They are less accurate, but this doesn't seem to matter to the DHSC. Having gone down the LFT route, the DHSC are then trying to claim that the Novacyt machines weren't up to the job. So they claim Novacyt are in breach of contract and the DHSC don't have to pay. We now know there are several such contracts DHSC are disputing, the only one I know of settled so far, the DHSC have paid in full.
Exactly this. And then the U.K. 1 product was the replacement product which they have said they won’t pay for. And now they have too much this the comment that dhsc likely don’t need any more for the rest of the year.
Well in that case, all and any good news is simply going to remain suppressed until the dispute is dealt with. Lets hope the mediation arrives at an amicable solution, it could really drag on if it goes legal.
Yep.
So having read this and applying it to what we've been given in today's RNS I'd assume that there is a problem with product supplied (exact problem and exact products TBC). Rather than allowing the company to replace (as per warranty terms) the DHSC have simply gone straight to the full refund option and held back funds pertinent to the invoices for the supplied disputed goods without giving the company the opportunity to replace.
The company is stating it's right to replace rather than refund - we arrive at a dispute.
Is that how everyone else reads it?
Warranty clause is copied below for ease of reference from contract referenced on Bidstat award notice as a footnote
20200927_Novacyt_Contract_for_Goods_and_Services_Execution_Version.rock_PrimerDesign_Redacted%20(005)_Redacted.pdf
see Clause 12 of Schedule 1 (Key Provisions) on page 17
12 Warranty: (only applicable to the Contract if this box ischecked) [IT IS CHECKED]
12.1 With regards to the Instruments, for a period of two years from date of purchase and with
regards to the Supplier Reagent Kits as per their referenced shelf life, Supplier warrants,
to the original purchaser only, that each Instrument and each Reagent Kit shall be (i) of
good quality and free of material defects, (ii) function in accordance with the Specification,
and (iii) approved by the proper governmental agencies required for the sale of products
for their intended use(the “limited warranty”). If any Instrument or Reagent Kit fails to meet
the requirements of the limited warranty, then, Supplier shall promptly (in any event within
twenty (20) Business Days or such other time agreed by the Parties in writing acting
reasonably) either repair or replace, at Supplier’s discretion, the Instrument or Reagent Kit,
as applicable. Except for the limited warranty stated in this section, Supplier disclaims any
all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to, any warranty of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose regarding the Goods. Supplier’s maximum
liability with any Authority claim under this warranty shall be to replace the faulty Goods
free of charge or refund to the Authority the full costs for such faulty Goods paid by the
Authority to the Supplier if replacement is not possible. The limited warranty above shall
not apply if the Authority has subjected the Supplier Instrument or Reagent Kits to physical
abuse, misuse, abnormal use, use inconsistent with the Supplier Instrument User Manual
or Product Insert, fraud, tampering, unusual physical stress, negligence or accidents.
Unused Reagent Kits must be stored according to the required storage conditions as
printed in this product insert and they can be used only up to the expiry date printed on the18
Reagent Kit pouch and Reagent Kit box. Any warranty claims by Authority pursuant to the
limited warranty shall be made in writing within the applicable limited warranty period.