Major works to be carried out on three Scottish bridges
Specialist contractor Spencer Bridge Engineering was appointed to undertake the works, having worked on similar infrastructure projects for the last 30 years.
Forth Road Bridge The firm is set to replace the lateral thrust bearings on the Forth Road Bridge, which are from the bridge's original construction in the early 1960s and have reached the end of their serviceable life.
The project will begin this year with engineers installing temporary steelwork to enable the replacement, with replacement work taking place next year during a period of "favourable weather".
READ MORE: Police officer found guilty of sexually assaulting two colleagues
The contractor will also replace two underdeck gantries on Tay Road Bridge, which connects Dundee to Newport-on-Tay.
Tay Road Bridge A team will replace the gantries, which have been in place since the 1980s, to allow future maintenance works to be carried out more efficiently.
The third project is at Kessock Bridge, which crosses the Beauly Firth at Inverness. Spencer Bridge Engineering has been appointed to carry out steelwork modifications on the pylons on the bridge.
Kessock Bridge (Image: Dave Conner) Once completed, the works will allow improved access and will create a rescue system to improve the safety of workers in the event of an emergency.
Glen Smithson, operations director at Spencer Bridge Engineering, said: 'Having the ability to provide turnkey solutions, delivering both the design and installation works, enables us to have tight control of each element of the project and ensure we are delivering the highest quality works in the most efficient way.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon breaks silence on Supreme Court gender ruling
'Our ethos of having strong collaboration with our clients ensures our projects are more closely tailored to each client's individual needs and specifications.
'Our teams are adept at working in remote, exposed locations, with difficult logistics, which is another factor which makes us so well equipped to work on so many Scottish infrastructure projects.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Car finance judgement 'a hard pill to swallow'
A ruling by the UK's most senior judges later has closed down an opportunity for millions of motorists to claim compensation for motor finance Supreme Court decided not to uphold an earlier ruling which found that hidden commission payments to car dealers were the ruling left open the possibility of claims for compensation for large commissions that were BBC talked to two of the people who brought the case to the Supreme Court, plus a person who is planning to make a claim. 'A really big bag of salt' Marcus Johnson from Cwmbran, Torfaen, was one of the claimants in the landmark described the the outcome as "a bitter pill to swallow", although was awarded just over £1,650 on the grounds that his relationship with the lender was said he was "pleased for myself, but not for the hundreds of others" who will now miss out."It's weird," he said. "It's a win, but it's a really big bag of salt to go with it".He was 27 when he bought a blue Suzuki Swift in 2017, and did not know that the commission had been paid, although the lender said he had signed a after passing his driving test in June of that year he walked into a car dealership, and within an hour was driving away in a car he liked, "very excited".It wasn't until threes years later, when he had paid off the finance on the car, that he realised he still had almost the cash price of the car left to was then he decided to contact the three claimants won their test cases, it could have opened up lenders to compensation claims totalling about £ it stands, that bill could shrink to between £5bn and £13bn, according to accountancy and advice firm BDO. 'There's still meat on the bone' Andrew Wrench has been described as "a postman with a penchant for fast cars".He says that description "made me chuckle". The 61-year-old is ex-forces, and also held other positions before becoming a postman, but he is proud to have been described as "the Erin Brockovich of Stoke-on-Trent".He says he is pleased that Marcus was awarded compensation, and that there will be further claims arising from that judgement."There's still meat on the bone," he says, adding that he is glad he helped throw light on the subject, even though his own case was not successful."I just want people to be accountable, and I don't want them getting away with being deceitful and dishonest," he adds. "It all comes down to: honesty is the best policy."Andrew's lawyer, Kavon Hussain of Consumer Rights Solicitors, says that the judgement was "a mixed bag", but showed that the Supreme Court expected car dealers to "always be acting in their own interests" and people should not expect a good deal. 'I'm going to chase my claim' Although it has been a mixed result for the claimants in the case, some people are determined to pursue dealers were paid a bigger commission if they sold a higher interest rate on the were known as discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) and were banned by regulators in Caffrey, from Blackburn, bought a car in 2009 after maternity leave. Her son was born with certain medical needs, and she wanted a car to get to work and multiple doctor appointments."I'm going to pursue my claim, but I do feel for the people it's put a stop to," she says. "They won't be compensated and I find that quite sad."Jemma feels she was "taken advantage of as a vulnerable new mum". She trusted the car dealership to give her the best deal it could, and paid a high interest rate for her blue Corsa, which she named "Colin". It was not until years later, having read about car finance in the local press, that she went to a law firm to bring a now intends to pursue it.
Powys County Times
4 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Lenders do not owe millions compensation over car finance, Supreme Court rules
Lenders have avoided potentially having to pay compensation to millions of drivers, after the Supreme Court ruled they are not liable for hidden commission payments in car finance schemes, but some motorists may still receive payouts. The UK's highest court ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act 'altruistically' in the customers' interest. The decision comes after two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged a Court of Appeal ruling which found 'secret' commission payments, paid by buyers to dealers as part of finance arrangements made before 2021, without the motorist's fully informed consent, were unlawful. The ruling in October last year found that three motorists, who all bought their cars before 2021, should receive compensation after they were not told either clearly enough or at all that the car dealers, acting as credit brokers, would receive a commission from the lenders for introducing business to them. On Friday, Lords Reed, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, Briggs and Hamblen ruled that car dealers did not have a relationship with their customers that would require them to act only in the customers' interest, and that the Court of Appeal was wrong. But they said that some customers could still receive payouts by bringing claims under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA). The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it will confirm by Monday whether it will consult on a redress scheme, while one of the three drivers said he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling. Handing down the judgment, Lord Reed said the car dealer 'was at all times pursuing its own commercial interest in achieving a sale of the car on profitable terms'. He continued: 'In reaching the opposite conclusion, the Court of Appeal failed to understand that the dealer has a commercial interest in the arrangement between the customer and the finance company. 'The court mistakenly treated the dealer as acting solely in the interests of the customer once the customer had chosen a car and agreed a price.' The FCA, which intervened in the case, previously said it would set out within six weeks whether it would consult on a redress scheme. But a spokesperson said after the ruling that it would confirm whether it will consult on any such scheme by 8am on Monday 'to provide clarity as quickly as possible'. Lord Reed said the Supreme Court had decided to deliver its ruling on a Friday afternoon, outside of trading hours and after the markets had closed for the weekend, to avoid the risk of 'market disorder'. The three drivers involved in the case, Marcus Johnson, Andrew Wrench and Amy Hopcraft, all used car dealers as brokers for car finance arrangements for second-hand cars worth less than £10,000 before January 2021. Only one finance option was presented to the motorists in each case, the car dealers made a profit from the sale of the car and received commission from the lender. The commission paid to dealers was affected by the interest rate on the loan. The schemes were banned by the FCA in 2021, and the three drivers took legal action individually between 2022 and 2023. After the claims reached the Court of Appeal, three senior judges ruled the lenders were liable to repay the motorists the commission because of the lack of disclosure about the payments. Lawyers for the lenders told the Supreme Court at a three-day hearing in April that the decision was an 'egregious error', while the FCA claimed the ruling went 'too far'. In their 110-page judgment, the five Supreme Court justices found that 'an offer to find the best deal is not the same as an offer to act altruistically'. They said: 'No reasonable onlooker would think that, by offering to find a suitable finance package to enable the customer to obtain the car, the dealer was thereby giving up, rather than continuing to pursue, its own commercial objective of securing a profitable sale of the car.' However, the judges upheld a claim brought by Mr Johnson under the CCA that his relationship with the finance company had been 'unfair'. Mr Johnson, then a factory supervisor, was buying his first car in 2017 and paid the £1,650.95 in commission as part of his finance agreement with FirstRand for the Suzuki he purchased. The Supreme Court ruled he should receive the commission and interest, which Mr Johnson told the PA news agency totalled 'just over £3,000'. Mr Johnson said that he was 'dumbfounded' by the ruling, which he said 'does not sit right with me'. He said: 'I am obviously happy that my case was successful, but for so many other people that were also overcharged, I just don't like the message it sends to the UK consumer.' He said the ruling 'sounds like it's fine to secretly overcharge customers for commission'. A Treasury spokesperson said it would work to 'understand the impact for both firms and consumers'. They said: 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted. That is why we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act. 'These reforms will deliver a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment for businesses and consumers, while ensuring that products are sold to customers fairly and clearly.' Close Brothers said it was 'considering' the judgment and 'will make any further announcements as and when appropriate'. Kavon Hussain, founder and lawyer at Consumer Rights Solicitors, which represented Ms Hopcraft and Mr Wrench, said it was 'disappointing' the Supreme Court did not fully uphold the Court of Appeal's ruling. He said: 'The Supreme Court ruling supports our view that lenders had acted unfairly in millions of car finance deals. 'This should now pave the way for the biggest compensation payout to motorists in British legal history. 'We will fight to get consumers the money they are owed by these lenders.'
BBC News
4 hours ago
- BBC News
Car finance payouts limited, but lenders aren't off the hook
There may well be a few sighs of relief from senior finance company and banking executives following the Supreme Court's ruling, but it is unlikely you will hear the champagne corks verdict does almost certainly reduce the potential compensation bill significantly. Lenders no longer face the prospect of having to pay £30bn to £40bn to aggrieved car buyers. The likelihood of the government stepping in also appears to have receded the industry is not off the hook. The Financial Conduct Authority may still open a redress scheme for cases where dealers had a financial incentive from lenders to ramp up interest rates on loans as much as possible. The Supreme Court's ruling also upheld one consumer claim, in which the commission payments were deemed unfair – and that could provide a template for others to follow. All of this means the compensation bill could still be in the Supreme Court's intervention has been eagerly awaited since October, when the Appeal Court issued a verdict in three test cases which could have triggered an avalanche of compensation each case, people who had bought cars on finance claimed they were partially unaware that the deal had involved a commission payment being made by the lender to the car dealer. They claimed that in law the commissions amounted to bribes, or secret Appeal Court judges agreed, essentially saying that commission payments made by a finance company to a dealer for arranging a car loan were illegal if the car buyer had not given his or her "informed consent".They also concluded that a car dealer had a "fiduciary duty" towards the car buyer when it came to arranging a car loan. In other words, the dealer should set his or her own interests aside, and act purely on the customer's meant that millions of car buyers could potentially claim compensation – if they could show that the dealer had not specified what commission payments they were receiving for lining up a finance deal. It was not enough for the details to be buried in small had feared that this would lead to an avalanche of claims against them – and that the same arguments could be used to challenge other kinds of consumer finance agreements as well, potentially increasing the compensation bill still the Supreme Court threw very cold water over those arguments. The President of the Court, Lord Reed, dismissed the idea that car dealers had a "single minded duty of loyalty" to their customers, and insisted they "plainly and properly" had personal interests in the finance agreements they were involved ruling clearly blocks off what could have been a very wide avenue for compensation claims. However, the court did side with one of the claimants. In the case of Marcus Johnson, a factory worker, it decided that the finance agreement was "unfair" under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act. This was because the size of the commission payment was very large, and because Mr Johnson had been misled about the relationship between the dealer and the lender. He was, they said, entitled to say this could open the doors for other cases in which the commission payments are seen to be is also a key question the Supreme Court ruling does not answer. This is what should happen in cases involving so-called Discretionary Commission Agreements (DCAs). These were finance deals in which the car dealer could set the interest rate of a loan, within a set scale. The higher the rate, the more commission they would be paid – and the customer would be unaware of the Financial Conduct Authority banned such deals in 2021. It is now considering whether to launch a redress scheme for consumers who were affected by them. If it goes ahead, millions of car buyers could still have a claim, though it is not clear how much compensation they would to Richard Barnwell, a financial services advisory partner at accountancy firm BDO, the bill could still be substantial."We believe there is still a potential for redress, for example, if discretionary commission arrangements are deemed to be an unfair relationship, redress could still be from to £5bn to £13bn or more," he analysts agree. According to Martin Lewis, who runs the MoneySavingExpert website, "the Supreme Court has certainly narrowed the number of people who will be able to reclaim car finance. I think you're probably talking the lower end of £10bn, as opposed to £40bn."That £10bn would still be a significant figure. But the finance industry appears to have avoided the potential free-for-all rush to claim compensation the earlier verdict had threatened to spark while the Treasury says it will "work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers", the BBC understands that the likelihood of the government intervening with retrospective legislation to protect financial firms has now diminished law of bribery only applies to persons who owe a single-minded duty of loyalty and are therefore bound to have no personal interest in the matter that they are dealing the present case the car dealers plainly and properly have a personal interest in the dealings between the customers and the finance companies.
