User talk:Deltadawn

Edits to Security of Payments page
Hi,

I saw that you were the sole author of the Security of payment page. Congratulations on including such a complex legal topic but I had a number of issues I felt needed to be addressed.


 * Why the exclusive focus on Australia?
 * Why include SOP.org? It's a small Australian company, how is it notable enough to be included in a worldwide encyclopedia?
 * Some of the language falls foul of the criteria for blatant advertising: "Security of Payments.org[4] alleviates that problem by...". Some of this appears to have been lifted from the website's corporate page.
 * You don't actually explain in a layman's terms what a security of payment actually is.

You've obviously put a lot of time into this page though so I'll hold off before asking help from mods or trimming down the page.Liberivore (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the delay in replying, as I had to find out how to reply as I am new to Wikipedia and its format.

To answer your queries:
 * The Australian provinces have legislation in place what is termed "Security of Payments" for the Building and Construction Industry. I'm making an attempt to let people know how "Security of Payments" works in Australia, other countries such as the UK, US, Germany and China, etc, must face the same difficulties. I'd like the information I've put forward be expanded on, as to how other countries manage and deal with progress claims by Contractors so people can understand different processes used to secure payment for work done. My thoughts were by adding this subject onto Wikipedia would help make others become aware of the different methods used to provide improved methods of securing payment, through which the Australian Provinces had to Legislate in order to prevent Contractors from going bankrupt. Hence the reason why at the moment it's focused on Australia.


 * The "Security of Payments Act" covers the simple $5,000 plumbing, electrical, carpentry jobs to the more complex multi billion dollar infra-structure works. It's an attempt by each Province to prevent, amongst other things, issues relating to the delay of payment to contractors. The timing of payment can be a drawn out process, as generally the larger contracts involves progress claims (invoices) as the job proceeds through the stages. A progress claim is generally assessed by the Developer or Head Contractor, as to its validity, as quite often Contractors over claim on their invoices when they make a progress claim. This assessment can take some time, as the progress of works by the Contractor is evaluated against the Contractors' claim by the Developer or Head Contractor. Developers and Head Contractors can dispute a claim and hold up payment, even on a minor amount in that claim. Contracts are usually written such that if there is a dispute in a claim, Contractors must still continue on with the works, as delays always invariably cause further cost blowouts to the Developer or Head Contractor, and in the contract mediation must be sought through a third party. However many Contractors rely on limited cash flow to even survive, pay their employees or their suppliers. The "Security of Payments Act" is an attempt to speed up the payment process. However, it doesn't address the fact that Developers and Head Contractors go bankrupt, where innocent contractors get caught up in the maelstrom of bankruptcy themselves, where all or most claims are disputed by the Developer or Head Contractor and aren't being paid. SOP.org seems to have made an improvement in the way Contractors get payed as the intermediary, as Contractors know monies have been set aside by Developers or Head Contractors for the works their about to perform, rather than not knowing if the Developer or Head Contractor is solvent or not. A contract between them is set up so that the Contractor can stop work if monies is not set aside for the works they are about to perform, thus protecting the Contractors themselves from going into receivership through no fault of their own. Hence taking the risk burden away from the the Contractor and putting the onus back onto the Developer or Head Contractor, who is now the only one in the money chain that potentially could go bankrupt, rather than several or even more Contractors as well. Hence the reason why I mentioned SOP.org in Wikipedia as a possible solution as an improvement to the "Security of Payments Act" adopted by the Australian Provinces.


 * If the language falls foul of blatant advertising, I would welcome any changes to the wording in order to explain how the payment systems, whether legislated or not, have actually failed to address payment to Contractors when Developers or Head Contractors go bankrupt and how this problem appears to be alleviated by a system adopted by SOP.org. Would it be better to have it worded in such a way without mentioning SOP.org but rather referencing some word(s) that explains the system SOP.org has adopted and link those word(s) to their website? What I'm attempting to do, is to inform people through Wikipedia how there are various ways in which payment methods are performed and how enterprises (contractors in particular) could be protected financially when a Project by a Developer or Head Contractor goes pear shape.


 * On the last point re layman's terms. Yes I have attempted to put it in layman's terms (probably rather poorly by the sounds of it), but no matter how I try, it is difficult due to the terminology that has to be used so as to not make the process of what occurs confusing. Does my second paragraph above explain it better? If you think it does, then I may change the wording about the subject to those I used in the second paragraph above.

Your suggestion on this is welcome.

Thanks for taking the time reading it and taking interest. Yours sincerely, --Deltadawn (talk) 08:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)