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

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 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

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 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) 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

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 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.

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

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 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 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 councilPlanningApplicationForm.pdf

in reply to SFU 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)