I get BoS current account statements with this return address,

ditto

With respect , have any of you actually dealt with the pharmaceutical industry and contracting?

Middle and upper management are quite incompetent

Negotiations? Both the company and Neo1 were just trying to expedite matters,but it really should have been down to the Agency and at the very minimum they should have sat in on the negotiations

 

As I appear to be ignored or dismissed then it is probably best I go

If you read post #6 .I would think I specified where the liability for the invoices lay

 

In any event, as others have advised, if the contract is between the company and the agency you probably did not have authority to negotiate your rate on behalf of the agency.

 

In #14 I clear up both the agreements and the negotiation of rates,all be it in the very simplest of terms

That makes any side deals you have agreed verbally null and void.

Agree, unless they are documented within the "Four Corners" of the first agreement (Unless your RFC)

 

**"Four Corners"

**he document itself; the face of a written instrument. The term is ordinarily included in the phrase within the four corners of the document, which denotes that in ascertaining the legal significance and consequences of the document, the parties and the court can only examine its language and all matters encompassed within it. Extraneous information concerning the document that does not appear in it—within its four corners—cannot be evaluated.

 

 

The mark up is agreed between the Agency and the Company ,Neo1 would and can be excluded from this agreement ,and with the greatest respect it is not his concern.

Someone said Neo1 shouldn't be talking to the company discussing his rates, I have to disagree ....because the Agency/company agreement is for the plus percentage

That being said the Agency are being a bit lax in their input(that's nice speak for being lazy Richard the Thirds)

the agreements are

1)Neo1 and the Agency..........consist of a rate......who need to know details ......only the two parties,BUT that rate is to be passed on to the company

 

2)Agency and the company.........consist of a percentage figure rate over the above......who need to know details .......only the two parties,

3)Neo1 and the company........consist of a rate discussion over the above(this is where the Agency is lax,for their fees that should be doing it.not Neo1)......who need to know details ...All

 

 

You never negotiate directly as you can never be totally sure what the fees are on top of your pay.

Disagree as I say the fees are not his concern,

Negotiations? Both the company and Neo1 were just trying to expedite matters,but it really should have been down to the Agency and at the very minimum they should have sat in on the negotiations

but once the client starts negotiating with the service provider (me) and verbally accepts a new rate (which was confirmed in writing by the service provider- does this not over ride any other agreement?

Until all the paperwork is in place and signed then no ,but if you write and confirm the acceptance then that shows only your acceptance of the terms they have put forward ,the terms are I believe " an acceptance of that offer which results in a meeting of the minds"With that in mind ,irrespective of the rest .....You have an agreement

I would have be happier if a contract for the period was in existence, Effectively a contract is a signed document formalising an agreement the terms of which that you are both satisfied with, all terms of the contract would be on that document(I'd say the Four Corner rule will apply)

The other agreement would terminate at the end of the six month period, unless there is within that document an extension clause,there will be some wording to cover such eventualities

 

The fact that the first 2 invoices were paid does this not mean that the new rate was accepted by the client and therefore active?

Maybe Yes maybe No, BUT the fact that they paid sets a precedent (that is close enough as I can't think of the phrase to describe the previous action in paying the invoices)

If the two are coupled together ,throw in the legalese(case law or common law) and that should sort it

The Agency is liable for the invoices submitted ,that's who previously paid you ........Is that correct?

The Agency gets a percentage of the invoices,over and above the invoiced value ,.............Is that correct?

and a percentage of your signing on fee

HOWEVER the Agency will be arguing that they only act as a "paymaster" therefore are not liable

It's clear to me that the company don't want to pay any increase,and especially the Agency fees or costs.

and are telling the Agency that.

In part the company want the Agency in whatever form to underwrite the costs within the invoices ( the vat at the requisite rate and Agency fees)

What you need to look at the agreement between the Agency and yourself ,together with any variations,that would include ANY direct agreements with the company,if any do exist

I would say that any agreement between the Agency and the company don't concern you Unless you are a signatory within that agreement.

 

 

Without considering anything else the company are looking at a 30% reduction in costs

 

However (again)

On confirmation of the new rates the client was to notify my agency (which apparently they failed to do in a timely manner).

with that, I'd think that no agreement now exists between the Agency and the company,if that is the case then I would say again the Agency has the liability

You need some kind of confirmation that you followed the Agency instructions in regard to employment

 

It's probably not the best news but you can sort it all out

With respect rebel11 , the paragraph(s) below point out what was postedThere is not a hope in hell that the banks would relish the idea of getting involved in another bank charges goldrush which this forum started in 2006 and therefore there is not a hope in hell that any bank that receives particulars of claim will not see it all the way into court...Are you sure about the points in this paragraph,I thought the first bank charges claim was by a law student,it certainly was in my copy of the Guardian.........................................................................................................................There is not a hope in hell that any county court judge would be prepared to bite the bullet even on the relevant parts of the particulars of claim and give a judgement in favour of a bank charges claimant. It would have to be decided at least by High Court judge.......again are you sure,It would be the county or sheriff court to hear the action, there upon to the complexity or merits of the case,or as in the case of Ian Hamilton QC v RBS kick it to a Higher courts, if thought necessary ................................................................................................... Anybody who gets involved in trying to claim their bank charges on the basis of this particulars of claim is cruising for a hiding. You can be absolutely certain that the banks will want to deliver a very painful lesson to anyone who pops up out of the woodwork and tries to start training bank charges again...........................I DO hope that this is not negativity for the sake of negativity

sell the house with planning permission, or even build on it myself at a later date

 

If you try to pursue this you may find a problem,the land could be on a flood plain ,irrespective of who caused the flooding...

value wise without PP it makes no difference.

 

Sepa (hydrology dept)in EK will advise fully on whether or not it's a flood plain or in the vicinity(although you can check on their web site if it is)of one

Never had a problem there,but I had the OS references as well.

 

Still, It's the OP choice which route to try

 

Best of luck

Go

should have been there

 

Adverse posession does exist,

 

Check the current rules with the Land Registry, you need to seek permission to apply for the title to the land,at present the odds are not great

Disagree,

A couple of quid to land registry ,that's the way I'd

Planning has no relevance,honest believe me

 

The main problem lies in the fact that you would have no title to the land nor any right of title,ownership must be certain

However If you had an agreement within the Land Title (in England these are covenants)slightly different in Scotland but for the sake of debate regard as the same,similar to a right of way over the land(common in the case of shared driveways etc).....This would ascertain what you could or couldn't do

 

to illustrate the problem

 

You build a house over a section of land that you don't own,

 

 

The owner comes along after say 10 years ,What happens?

 

He tells you to move off the land

or

Charges you rent for the 10 years then tells you to move of the land

 

Get the title or ownership sorted first,

 

Of course If you're sure the council are not a load of overpaid numpties,take their word for it.

We're talking about common ground

Don't think that has been properly established,has it?

Neighbour notification remains a requirement regardless - so I don;t see your point here.

Point is the empty land ,require a signature,to be submitted to the council

read C1 and note 17....councils are now requiring a signature of the land owner,to the vacant land,most councils are doing it themselves,mainly due to abuse of the system prior to 2005(ie the applicant submits the form ,stating neighbours notified,but didn't bother to do so

 

to go back to OP

 

 

they have even suggested that its 1 of the local places that own the land and not them

the council are being a bit cagey,the councils do have access to regestered owners,via link now,nowtheless it's therefore not common ground

When I tell them that its the council selling me the land, they play dumb.

Quite frankly they won't do anything as purchase would be done via Legal and Protective Service Dept,or what Dept deals with in in your council,and councils won't spend any money on it if it's getting sold, they'll waste money elsewhere,a Good councillor's buffet I suspect,(I digress.......lol)

Anyway, I have now been cutting this back for quite a while, but now its turning into a skip, and people are dumping there crap in it.

Two things here the council are of course happy you're doing the work

Secondly the tipping.....that would be Fly-tipping an offence, ...see council Environment or Waste Dept and voice your concern

I heard from someone that if you maintain land for long enough attached to your property, then you can actually claim it as your own? Is this actually true?

No it not true, what it has been confused with is the right of way over the land,which was the old rules, however the right of way/ access was dealt with in an act circa 2001, I sure you remember Anne Gloag (Stagecoach) fighting it big style

 

If you want to know ownership, Land Registery Edinburgh(main office) or Glasgow (George Square)

 

better if you go in ,they are extremely helpful, and will produce copies of the title, from around £2.00.......

I've went back to 1820, on one and 1838 in another

 

 

What you are talking about is 'adverse posession' but it is a long winded affair as it takes (I believe) 10 years and you have to enclose it within your own boundary and await complaints. (If any).

Disagree , I believe you would not have the right of title to the land.......I had a walled in strip for 30 year and had no title no had I any right to the land

By far the best way is to what many others do, and put in a Planning Application. Specify the ground, its location and your wish to enclose it within your own property. If a strip, and there's no objection - once permission is granted - your purpose will be to bring it within your curtilage, enclose and maintain the X sq m of common ground as part of your garden. Pay the fee, and if you hear no more - do it.

Again I disagree.Planning applications have no relationship to ownership..ie a developer submits an application, he doesn't necessarily own the the land , and remember the drawing and application require you to state ownership of the site and notifiable neighbours......See C1 section in the attachment, all e.planning form are very similar irrespective of council

PlanningApplicationForm.pdf

in reply to SFU

but not unlimited

As MD points out a figure of £10,000, remember the Ian hamilton issue which was similar in that it was going to get kicked to a higher court.the figure he mentioned was £100,000 which he couldn't afford,and dropped the case(It should be point out that Ian Hamilton is a QC and was a Sheriff)

removed

Recently I THINK I caught a snatch of news stating that the courts had ruled that cutomers cannot make claims against the banks' unfair charges. Is this correct and, if so, does it apply to Scotland as well as England?

 

the ruling generally applies both north and south of the border,note the word generally.......however new PoCs will emerge (it would be fair to say that all forums are working on this as a matter of urgency) ,based on the actual ruling as opposed to what the banks have interperated it to say

A phrase was used in a judgement,

the gist was that

 

"the situation should be returned to the state it was prior to the breach occuring"..or similar to that....where did that come from?

That is not the exact wording,

 

It was saying in effect that the party should be put back in the position they would've been had (charges/breach) not been taken place.

 

I read it somewhere about 18-24 months ago,maybe longer

 

Which Judgement did it come from ?

 

 

Thanks in anticipation

There should be no problem as the 750 limit on small claims was lifted over a year ago, and the new limit for Small claims is £3000, and the previous Summary Cause limit went from £1500 to £5000.

So you are within the Small Claim bracket

You are within the 5 year time limit so you can go back 5 years from the date of you first complaint leter.

If you did have some beyond this time scale then with the FoS , you can go back 6 years.

 

Most if not all the stuff you need is here ,I have never found CAB very helpful, well intentioned to a point..........your local one may be better

If after 8 weeks they havn't replied,or told you when you will receive a reply

You have two alternatives submit a complaint to the FoS ,but the better option would be to file a claim at the Sheriff court,It's not scarey,

first you need to list the charges on a spread sheet, then submit a LBA (letter before action)to the bank

 

You will find this link helpful

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/scotland/94302-updated-scottish-procedure.html

AC are only a selling organisation run by a crowd of would be GLESGAE HARD MEN. WIDE BOYS

 

Nah.....just chancers

 

WHY are Trading Standards not able to control them???

 

AC size and the fact that they'll throw a load of money at top solicitors at it.....

together with the lack of adequate resources to fight AC

Phone the Scottish Sun Ad Department and ask, Not the English one of course.Be discreet and sus if they paid their bills. Well worth a call

I am assumming you've only sent a standard complaint leter,and have completed spread sheet,and have all your statements

You have 2 choices .complaint to FoS ...or sent of a LBA letter , then follow that up if they don't refund with Filing a claim via the Sheriff court, the information the Bank have provided is not strictly true as the terms of the test case are excluding Scotland,

 

the link is here

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/92-3-letter-before-action.html

 

remember that it will be Sheriff Court and not a County Court in the wording,

If stuck just ask

Stephen Hone/Penalty Charges

 

27/10/2008

 

 

Dear Stephen

It has recently come to our attention that your web site http://www.penatlychargesforum.co.uk appears to offer advice and

seems to encourage the borrowing of money from companies without the intention of repaying it.

The nature of borrowing money with the intention of never repaying is viewed as deception, and is a clear breach of s.15 of the Theft Act 1968.

Here are some links of examples

http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk...ad.php?t=45733

http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk...t=payday+loans

For example this link http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk...t=payday+loans

shows one of the forum users telling someone to cancel their direct debits and change their contact numbers to avoid contact.

These people are freely admitting that they cannot afford to borrow the money, but borrow it anyway, then openly use tactics they have learned from each other to avoid repaying.

This is not only a breach under s.15 of the Theft Act 1968 but is also a breach of our Terms and Conditions of service s.

4.3 to include s.4.3.4 and s.4.3.5

We hereby suspend your hosting and put you on notice to take action and to immediately remove all references to these kinds of activities and any forums relative to these activities and actions.

Our terms and conditions are attached.

Kind Regards

Carl Fearby

Managing Director

Paper Hat Creative Limited Relevant part of T&C's

 

Quote:

4.3. The Client warrants that it shall:

4.3.1. Use its best endeavours to co-operate with THE COMPANY in relation to the registration or transfer of any

domain name and shall provide all information as may be necessary to effect such registration or transfer;

4.3.2. not submit to THE COMPANY any Requests in relation to a domain name or names which it knows, or should

(after reasonable inquiry) have known, infringes or might reasonably be considered to infringe the IPR of any third

party;

4.3.3. not in using the web-hosting services, use any domain name or other descriptor which is, or might

reasonably considered to be, in breach of any IPR of any third party,

4.3.4. Use the web-hosting services for lawful purposes only;

4.3.5. Not use the web-hosting services:-

(a) to store, reproduce, transmit, communicate or knowingly receive any material which is

offensive, abusive, indecent, defamatory, obscene, pornographic or menacing, or in breach of

confidence, privacy, IPR or any other rights of any third party or contain links to such material or

upload any such material onto a website hosted by THE COMPANY or by a supplier of THE

COMPANY;

(b) For the sending of unsolicited bulk emails; or

© Any other purpose which, at the sole discretion of THE COMPANY, is deemed inappropriate

for publication on the internet.

4.3.6. Not to sell to any other person (whether in money or monies worth, the giving or withholding of any business

or benefit of any kind or description), either directly or indirectly, the web-hosting services.

4.4. THE COMPANY shall be the sole arbiter as to what constitutes a breach of clause 4.3 and the Client shall indemnity

and hold harmless THE COMPANY against any loss, damage, liability, expenses or claims resulting from the Client’s

breach of clause 4.3 and THE COMPANY reserves the right to suspend or terminate the provision of hosting services due

to such breach and to charge the Client a reasonable administration fee for any subsequent reinstatement of service. The

Client agrees that THE COMPANY has the right to delete all data, files, or other information that is stored on the Client’s

account if the Client’s account is terminated, for any reason, by either THE COMPANY or the Client.

4.5. Where the Order Confirmation states that the Client shall be solely responsible for affecting the registration or

transfer of any domain name the Client shall affect such transfer or registration within 30 days from the date of the Order

Confirmation or as stated in the Order Confirmation.

Here the post I so angry that they accused us/me of providing "illegal Services" basically they called me a criminal, I will highlight the content of each post in the order you given for ease.

 

http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=45733

 

This was a post by xxxxxxxxxx in which he says

Quote:

I've now ignored QuickQuid for 5 full months in regard to money that I owe them. I know this is naughty but it's my route as I just can't afford to pay them.I've ignored all calls and all emails which have read:… I received the attached letter from QuickQuid On Saturday.

 

This is the first piece of actual mail I've had from them.I'm going to ignore it for 2 reasons:1 - I still can't afford to pay it2 - After this experience and that I've had with PTP, I seriously wonder how much power these payday companies based abroad really have to enforce the debt. This letter to me looks exactly like the type you get from a DCA when they are fishing for at least some of the money.

, these words clearly show this member is just informing us of what he has done, any why he done it at no point does he say “I ADVICE YOU NOT TO PAY MONEY YOU OWE or borrow money knowing you cannot pay it back.

he clearly is only setting out what he has done so he can be advised. in a later posted he says

Quote:

"Could have got out of it by not confirming DPA details but at the end of the day, I'm going to have to pay this back at some point as CCA would be enforceable.....so I decided I'd be reasonable and speak to them in order to enter into a payment arrangement.

Again clearly showing that he accepts he borrowed the money, subject to the firm having a legally enforceable agreement he will have to re pay it.http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk...=payday+loans2.

Quote:

I cancelled my debit card and no payments were taken. I ignored their calls for the next 4 days (including weekend) whilst I figured out what I could offer.

 

 

Please note the date.and the forum was down at 12.00 although I could not get on at 11.45............also the first paragraph refers to Appears to

 

In my opinion there was no presumption of innocence just a "fait accompli"

 

Stephen has said that he hopes to get the site up and running ASAP

 

 

Hope this goes some way to explain things

Yes but it won't accept any other than from the hosting company.

 

the withdrawing of web hosting was done allegedly in 2 Scottish cases one was lawscot dot com and the other was Scottish Lawyer.......both if memory is correct were done by the Law Society of Scotland who did similar to the hosting company.........one was the registering the Name in which the LS of Scotland believed that they owned , the other was I believe about the content and the domain name............nasty letters followed and the host bottled it ...........Court freezes lawscot.co.uk, owner claims unfair trial • The Register

 

is one of the cases ..the other I can't find.........Of course I could be completely wrong