Dispute continues over causes of fallen ceiling plaster

Safety risks have been removed at Jēkabpils Secondary School No. 2, which was declared safe for use after fire-resistant ceiling plaster fell last year, LSM reports. The municipality, contractor and other parties are now engaged in legal discussions over responsibility for the damage and the associated costs.

They also disagree on whether the fire-resistant plaster should be restored.

The contractor that reconstructed the school six years ago removed the plaster wherever it posed a risk at its own expense. The premises were declared safe for use in December, but no party has accepted responsibility for what happened.

Both municipal and European Union funding was used to pay for the plaster that fell and was removed. The municipality therefore wants either new plaster to be installed or the money to be repaid, arguing that the contractor should cover the cost.

“The technology was not followed. Every material has its own specifications, which state how it must be installed. Of the four floors in the new wing, the plaster fell on three; on one floor it did not, it remains in place and everything is in order. Why? The construction journal shows that the technology was followed there,” said Ainārs Skromāns, head of the Jēkabpils municipality’s Infrastructure Management Division.

The contractor has a different view of the situation.

“The company is currently not ready to install the ceilings again. We believe we cannot repay the funds because everything was done according to the approved construction design and all the required technologies. We commissioned an expert assessment, which indicated that the selected material was unsuitable,” said Jānis Dimants, construction manager at Jēkabpils PMK.

The construction design was prepared by BRK Projekti. Its board chairwoman and architect, Ineta Buka, said the design solutions, including the choice of plaster, had received a positive expert assessment. The project had also been approved by municipal specialists.

“The material was selected on the basis of the manufacturer’s specifications, descriptions and instructions. None of the specifications states that this material could not be used,” Buka said.

All the parties involved are currently taking part in a legal negotiation process.