HDC faces $113k lawsuit over unpaid janitorial services

The Housing Development Company office in Port of Spain. -

The owner of Dirt B Gone Janitorial & Maintenance Services Ltd, a company contracted by the Housing Development Corporation (HDC), has rejected a request by HDC for an extra month to respond to a pre-action letter over $113,000 in alleged unpaid payments.

On December 9, attorney Kenneth Bradshaw wrote to the permanent secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Ministry and HDC's managing director, saying his client, businessman Alick Anthony Charles, did not agree to the extension sought by the state agency.

Dirt B Gone Janitorial & Maintenance Services Ltd, owned by Charles, was contracted to provide monthly waste disposal services and periodic bulk waste removal at Ridgewood Gardens, housing development Phase Two in Golconda.

According to the attorney of Bradshaw & Bradshaw Legal Solutions in Marabella, a pre-action protocol letter was issued on November 24.

That letter outlined that, despite the full completion of all services and the timely submission of invoices, the HDC failed and/or neglected to pay invoices totalling $113,424.

The sum represented outstanding payments for March, June, July, August, September and November.

In its December 5 response, the HDC said the matter was being addressed by the legal department, which was "in the process of investigating the matter."

The HDC requested that legal proceedings be stayed for one month to allow for a comprehensive reply.

Bradshaw, however, said his client was not prepared to grant the extension, adding that his client had already "endured prolonged, unreasonable delay in breach of contract."

The attorney contended that a further 30-day extension under the "vague umbrella of investigation" is untenable and wholly prejudicial to Charles.

Bradshaw also cited financial hardship and prejudice, adding that his client was forced to source external funds to pay staff, and faced repeated embarrassment and confrontation from workers and third-party creditors seeking overdue payments.

The attorney said his client also endured significant strain on his business operations and suffered serious stress and instability within his home life.

The attorney also challenged the HDC's reference to an investigation, saying no basis was disclosed.

"Your reference to an ongoing 'investigation' is unparticularised, unsupported, and raises concern. All services were completed, verified on-site, and duly approved through your internal payment channels," the attorney said.

"In these circumstances, the use of the term' investigation' without explanation suggests an attempt to delay an obligation that is already due, owing, and acknowledged within HDC's own records. There is no known factual dispute, nor any issue requiring a prolonged internal review."

Bradshaw said his client is prepared to grant a final extension of seven days from the date of the letter for HDC to issue full payment of $113,424, to settle interest accruing under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, and to reimburse $3,500 in legal costs.

Failing this, the attorney said he was instructed to proceed without further notice to file a claim for debt and damages for breach of contract and seek interest and costs.

He said he was also instructed to pursue equitable relief and escalate the matter to the Office of the Procurement Regulator (OPR) for investigation under the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Property Act.