[ad_1]
The mayor assures all the inhabitants of Sector 1 that they will not go through the situation we experienced in December, when Romprest did not collect, for a few days, the “uncontrolled” garbage in the sector.
“I will no longer tolerate blackmail and threats from the Garbage Mafia. Sector 1 pays for sanitation services and is 10 times more expensive than the rest of the country. Sector 1 City Council was an honest partner, Sector City Council 1 is not a tap with money for its offshore transpartinica ”, writes Clotilde Armand.
Read also: Who is behind Romprest, the company that keeps the center of Bucharest under mountains of garbage. Ignored mockery of 2016: illegal payments of tens of millions of lei
Romprest threats
The mayor’s appointment comes after several Romprest employees went out into Victoriei Square with sanitation carts and asked the Sector 1 City Council to pay the outstanding bills, which amount to approximately 100 million lei.
They say that the contract was violated and that the prices are not exaggerated at all. If the money is not paid, the company threatened that on Thursday they will not take the cars out of the garage, so they will no longer collect waste and will not do sanitation within Sector 1. The event was covered intensively by Antena 3.
Read also: Clotilde Armand defeats Romprest in a first test. What’s going on in the courts with the “garbage war” in Sector 1?
Sector 1 Mayor’s Post
In a new blackmail attempt, the sanitation company took out their cars to protest Sector 1 in the hope that the mayor will pay them the bills illegally issued last year, bills not paid by the mayor of the PSD, the diamond man. . Beautiful movement. Unfortunately for the management of this company I say that I was not impressed by the blackmail of the “protest” or the notification threatening that as of 11.02.2021 it will not collect uncontrolled street garbage from Sector 1.
Now, I sent this address to the sanitation company and I want to make it public:
To: Romprest Service SA (“Romprest”)
Address: Bd. Poligrafiei no. 1C, et. 3, sector 1, Bucharest
Attention: Mr. Marian-Bogdan Adimi, Deputy Managing Director
Email: [email protected]
Reference: Notification address no. 559 / 03.02.2021
No. of pages (including annexes): 5 pages
Data: 05.02.2021
Dear Sir,
As a result of the Notification Directorate of the violation of the rights of the Delegated Operator and of the limitation / suspension for an indefinite period, consequently, of the activities within the Public Sanitation Service in the territorial administrative area of Sector 1 of the Municipality of Bucharest No. 559 / 03.02.2021 (“Notification address”),
Given the:
A. The provisions of the Contract to delegate the management of the provision of sanitation services within the administrative area of Sector 1 Bucharest no. J077 / S / 30.06.2008 (“Delegation Agreement”);
B. The conclusion of 12.29.2020 delivered by the District Court 1 of Bucharest in file no. 41225/299/2020;
C. Address no. 5897 / 12.16.2020 by which you were asked to justify the services actually provided, being, at the same time, informed that the payment will be made only after the restoration of the tax invoices in order to agree with the services actually provided ,
We send you this presence
Notification
We would like to inform you of the following:
1. As a preliminary observation, we consider it necessary to clarify the fact that Romprest and the Joint Commission established under HCL do not. 293 / 12.15.2020 did not negotiate any offer, much less to reach an agreement of will. In fact, following discussions held by the members of the commission and Romprest representatives, on 01.25.2021, Romprest sent the offer registered under n. 395 / 25.01.2021.
2. Your offer is in the analysis of the personnel within the specialized apparatus and our intention was to return with a counter offer adjusted to the budgetary resources available for the current year. Also, keep in mind that our request was to adjust the Delegation Agreement to the real needs of Sector 1, with the consequence of reducing the benefits and fees that apply.
3. On the other hand, to date, you have not submitted an offer to adjust the Delegation Contract, the only proposal was to temporarily reduce only the amount of services, provided that the contracting authority assumes exorbitant obligations towards the “concessions” made by Romprest. Within its offer we do not find any proposal to reduce rates, although the rates it practices are well above the level of the rates approved in other administrative-territorial units of the country.
4. Therefore, the suspension / limitation of the provision of services until the adoption of a decision that approves the “negotiated” offer can only be cataloged in the record of a conditioning based on false premises. I never denied the possibility of a negotiation, but, obviously, conditioned by a behavior marked by good faith on the part of the actors involved. Or, we cannot assess as in good faith a party that unilaterally transmits an offer on which it claims was negotiated and accepted, if these operations were not carried out. Nor can it be a refusal by the contracting authority to accept the “negotiated” offer, since this “offer” has never been negotiated by the joint committee or the executive management of the contracting authority.
5. We also remind you that the payment of the invoices issued by Romprest was suspended by the execution court, which considered that there were indications of the illegality of the forced execution. In this context, we note that the allegations of possible “abuse” as a result of non-payment of invoices issued by you are without factual basis.
6. According to art. 7.2 lit. a) of the Delegation Contract, the operator is obliged to carry out separate management for each operation, in order to establish the volume of works. On the basis of this contractual provision, the contracting authority requested the operator to provide all the GPS data to determine the exact volume of services provided by the operator.
7. Although the contracting authority submitted precise requests, the operator refused to provide all the data and information to verify the amount of services actually provided. In addition, the operator was asked to redo the invoices to reflect the irregularities found in the reports prepared by the Sector 1 Local Police.
8. However, Romprest consistently refused to reimburse the tax invoices, as a result of the suspension of payments. According to art. 8.1 lit. a) of the same contract, the contracting body has the right to request information on the level and quality of the service provided, with the corresponding obligation of the operator to provide all the information requested by the contracting body. Failure to comply with this obligation is sanctioned with the application of the penalties provided for in art. 11.1 of the Delegation Agreement.
9. We do not deny the right of the operator to proceed according to his intimate conviction either to the suspension of services or to their limitation, but bear in mind three essential aspects:
a) On the one hand, the suspension / limitation cannot affect the collection of domestic and municipal waste (art. 7.1 letter g), thesis II of the Delegation Contract);
b) Non-payment of invoices is determined by the refusal to provide the GPS data and the information necessary to be able to verify the invoices from the perspective of the amount of services actually provided;
c) The execution of the payment obligation was ordered by the execution court, which considered prima facie that the forced execution is, apparently, abusive.
10. In conclusion, compared to the above, we request the following:
a) Provide, as a matter of urgency, all the information and data necessary to verify the amount of services actually provided;
b) Restore tax invoices in the sense of correlating their value with the services actually rendered;
c) Notify us of the waste collection program in order to be able to undertake the execution of the service from 02.11.2021, respecting the principle of user protection provided in art. 7 par. (1) on. e) of Law no. 101/2006.
11. In conclusion, we remind you of the provisions of art. 11.3 of the Delegation Contract that grants the contracting authority the right to proceed with the termination of the Contract in the event that the operator does not comply with its assumed obligations. One of these obligations consists of ensuring the provision of the service in a continuous regime, with high quality standards, in exchange for a correct remuneration from the operator.
We assure you of our full availability to identify a solution that respects the principle of contractual balance, taking into account the specific rigors of the service of general economic interest (SGEI), both from the perspective of state aid legislation and from the perspective of compliance. on ensuring competition in a monopoly market. “
If this company leaves the garbage on the streets again and refuses to comply with its contractual obligations as of 12.02.2020, another operator will enter an emergency regime.
I assure all the inhabitants of Sector 1 that we will not go through the situation we experienced last month. I will no longer tolerate blackmail and threats from the garbage mafia. Sector 1 pays for sanitation services and is 10 times more expensive than the rest of the country. The Sector 1 City Council was an honest partner, the Sector 1 City Council is not a gryphon with money for their cross party abroad.
They no longer work with me.
Read also:
[ad_2]
