When an opposition politician wishes to rubbish a Government Department he/she will usually use an over-used, well-worn but totally misunderstood expression, describing the subject of his/her venom as “not fit for purpose.” In reality, what he/she is saying is that their own opposition party would run the department in a far more effective and efficient manner than ever the Government in power has been doing. They will often gloss over the fact that their own party was probably responsible for setting up the non-performing department in a previous administration and had non-performed just as abysmally. They may even acknowledge that they set the Department up, but vehemently state that the present administration has starved it of resources, resulting in the catastrophic failure.
This politician’s ‘sound-bite’ has now been purloined by industry, and I’m particularly referring to the construction industry, which is my own field of interest. Rather than setting out clear standards and specifications that are required to be followed, some construction professionals will merely list a number of (usually out of date) International, European or British Standards, trade specifications and/or the ubiquitous but totally meaningless Best Industry Practice, and override the whole thing with ‘reasonable skill and care’, or ‘fit for purpose’
Until recently, such ‘fit for purpose’ clauses would set contractors into panic mode. Specifically, a court judgement recently awarded damages of €26.5m against a design and construct engineering company for failing to provide wind turbine foundations that were ‘fit for purpose’, despite having followed the specified standards. Unfortunately the standard had erroneous data, and the resulting foundations did not did not satisfy the customer’s requirements for a twenty year life. So under this judgement, any contractor could diligently carry out his duties by following the required standard, but still be liable if the standard was incorrect.
However, the whole thing has now been turned on its head, by an appeal in which the judges have thrown out the award. It is now held that ‘fit for purpose’ and ‘reasonable skill and care’ clauses cannot over-ride any specification or specified standard.
That may be all well and good if there are comprehensive specifications and specified standards, but what is the case when a ‘specifier’ has specified very little and had relied on ‘fit for purpose.’ I would suggest that the ‘specifier’ has very little to stand by. “That’s not what I wanted,” will cut very little ice when the response is “You didn’t actually tell me what you wanted.”
This would also apply when the ‘specification’ for a replacement window, door or kitchen is ‘like-for-like’ and ‘fit for purpose.’ If you don’t set out a comprehensive specification of your requirements, you cannot expect the contractor to second guess what you require. Indeed I’m reminded of the time many years ago, when I asked a West Country contractor, dear old Pat Ifold from Bray and Slaughter, if he could do me a like-for-like joinery installation at a NatWest Bank in Cardiff. His withering reply was “I couldn’t in a million years do a job as bad as that!”
So, you commissioning surveyors out there. Set out your specific requirements, comprehensively, and you will get what you want. Failure to do so will result in you getting what you deserve.
Tim Oakley 
Leave a comment