Inoff the Red

There are two considerations here, the legal position and the commercial pragmatic position you find yourself in. I suggest picking the phone up and calling the guy that confirmed the quote and asking what happened to the job. Advise him that you have incurred costs following his acceptance of the quote but you have seen that someone else has done the job. It may be a cock up on their part in which case they may make amends by giving you future work. You get a true measure of character (and business ethics) when things go wrong. Give them a chance to suggest what they propose to do about it. If however, they were playing you to get a quote which they passed on to another firm so they could beat it (regrettably a common ploy with some big organisations), then regardless of size they are not worth dealing with and I would be tempted to go legal if they jerk you around. Taking a case through the small claims court is not expensive and its not that difficult.

Given the current economic climate and the age of austerity we find ourselves in which has lead to reduced public spending, it never ceases to amaze me at the ability of civil servants and other quangos to waste public money. We have seen the effects on the Somerset Levels of failure to dredge, justified in part because of lack of funding. Well comrades, I list below a number of aid projects that have been funded by the UK tax payer. I leave it to you to decide if , as taxpayers, we have received value for money….HEALTH WARNING Those with high blood pressure should read no further. 1. Aid to Columbian cattle ranchers to help cut flatulence in cows. £15m (anyone know how you stop a cow from farting?) 2. Programme to make PE lessons more meaningful in various countries including Malaysia, South Africa, Brazil & Turkey £8.35m 3. Renewable energy projects in China, India, Turkey & Nigeria £75m 4. contribution to EU aid projects £1bn (aid used to equip border guards in Belarus and fund a watermark in morocco 5. Sponsoring "Yegna", an Ethiopian girl band £3.8m While I accept that some overseas aid projects are worth supporting, the cost invested in the projects listed above would have paid for a lot of sand bags. I would love to know where most of this money REALLY ends up.

I think it has more to do with the EA, like so many other public bodies, losing sight of their function and purpose. The latest revelations about EA in todays newspapers are about the amount of money they spent on sponsoring a Gay Pride event and Gay Awareness merchandise for its staff……you couldn't make it up. Lord Chris Smith spent £639 on gay rights mugs | Mail Online Now I accept that the amount is peanuts in the overall scheme of things but like the huge amount spent on a bird sanctuary, the people supposedly leading the EA were getting involved in pet projects…..I think Smith's predecessor came from the RSPB (hence the spending of an obscene amount of money on a bird sanctuary). Smith is gay and so instead of worrying about whether EA should be dredging, he was promoting gay rights.

Tribute Castle Rock Navigation Stout

The top man at the BofE is actually a Canadian but I can see that recognising that fact would undermine your "toff" shot. As for having a handle on reality, you mean like the chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord Smith of Finsbury, that well known labour politician? Or Gordon (no more boom and bust ) Brown who will go down in history as the worst PM ever (and who now appears more intent on making money for his errrr charity than representing his constituents). Another interpretation could be that the much of the damage caused by the last government was orchestrated by a Scottish cabal (several of whom also had a private education)….. In some respects you are lucky, at least you have the opportunity of voting on independence. South of the border we are stuck with the decision in the same way that we have to suffer Scottish MPs who still vote on matters that have absolutely no impact on them or their constituents because the responsibility has been devolved to the Scottish parliament but such is their arrogance that they still get involved and vote presumably out of political spite. ….and don't get me started on the Barnet formula.

This is the issue Salmond doesn't seem to grasp. At the moment economic policies are determined by the Bank of England taking account of the entire UK. If Scotland goes for independence the B of E will still make policy decisions but without accounting for the interests of Scotland. The fact that Scots think that is somehow unfair shows a real attitude problem. Again, your comment about making friends etc is most telling. As soon as the debate hits practical issues that will make a huge difference to the future of an independent Scotland, some people start squealing. It would be totally out of order to remain silent on the issue and it is a matter that was always going to cause friction when the realities of the independence thing came home to roost.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "attitudes" its a matter of fact. It's the bank of England. The Bank of England issues notes and coins so technically it is the English pound.

If the Scots go for independence then the statement would be factually correct. The Jocks are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think they can go for independence AND still be involved in the decision making processes of the Bank of ENGLAND when making economic policy. Salmond has been ducking this issue throughout the campaign and I can't make up my mind whether he is being disingenuous or is just stupid. He is trying to make out it is a simple problem to resolve but it isn't.

This is the way to deal with unsolicited calls [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7OgWcwgB50]How to deal with a Telemarketer by Tom Mabe - YouTube[/ame]

To answer the question, yes he should resign (but because he has no integrity he won't). We have degenerated into a system where "old" politicians get looked after by the system when the leave/get kicked out of Parliament. Lord Smith of Finsbury was never the sharpest tool in the box and was an ineffective MP. When he stood down he picked up several nice little earners to keep in the style to which he had become accustomed, for example Chairman of the EA, Chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, board member of the PPL. His comments about not resigning "because there was a lot of work to do in the EA" were the ramblings of a buffoon; He has been in post for 6 years and apart from spending an obscene amount of cash on a bird sanctuary (I wonder were all that money REALLY went!) he has enjoyed the trappings of his post without actually doing anything to reduce the flood risk. We had an example a week ago of how these people think when the contract of the head of Offsted was not renewed. Instead of accepting the decision this harridan started bleating to the media claiming that her removal was a political decision….no recognition of the problems within Odffsted, no acceptance that after 4 years it was probably time for a new approach, she was pissed off because she had lost her easy £100k pa for 3 days work a week. These cretins with no idea of how the real world operates mooch from placement to placement, earning big bucks for doing f*** all. When they get kicked off the gravy train they whinge; when they are exposed as being incompetent they do not even have the decency to resign.

or a violin!

OK doobin, I'll fess up. My interest in the arb world is one of general interest really. As a hobby I do a bit of woodworking so always looking for timber. I was given a load of logs by a client who had cleared a building site and I chanced across the arb site while researching ways of diy milling. By profession I am bean counter so it is my misfortune to have to deal with HMRC on a regular basis on CIS/VAT/PAYE/Corporation tax matters. I can't tell anyone how to cut down trees but I know how HMRC operate. I know how they bully and abuse small businesses (they do cosy deals with the big boys) and so if see something on a thread where I think I can make a positive contribution, I put my two penneth in.

If that was a deduction for CIS I hope you do but I advise caution. HMRC is using tactics that would not be out of place on BBC Rogue Traders to avoid making repayments. I know of a case where a construction company is owed over £100k in respect of CIS deductions but HMRC refused to make a repayment because they claimed they had a query over £150. As a consequence of not getting the repayment, the company defaulted on a vat payment and was then hit by penalties. Yes, I know its stupid and you'll say why didn't HMRC withhold £1k pending resolution of the query. But thats the way they are. I have a catalogue of instances where honest tax payers have been jerked around by HMRC that would give you sleepless nights.

CIS is the HMRC getting revenge on the construction industry. In theory it is difficult to argue with the principles behind CIS but unfortunately the way the rules are sometimes applied by HMRC are grossly unfair. If you want to know more about CIS and whether it applies check out the following link. HM Revenue & Customs: Deciding whether your work comes within CIS The following is a quote from the HMRC guidance notes "There are some types of work that aren't automatically treated as construction operations, but can be in certain situations. For example, tree planting and landscaping aren't construction operations if they're part of estate management or forestry work. But HMRC would treat them as work that's covered by the CIS if they were done in the course of building a new housing development." So if you are doing work for construction companies, it may be worth registering for CIS. If you register the deduction made would probably be 20% (you may be able to get gross status). Your accountant should be able to advise you on this, but if you want any further info send me a pm. If you don't register and the contractor applies the CIS rules properly, the deduction would be 30%. Its a minefield and an area you don't want to get wrong.

Yes you can apply to reduce your payment on account. I wouldn't advise paying more on account than you need to because although HMRC will pay it back, and no repayment would be made until your 2013/14 tax return was submitted (deadline 31 January 2015) and processed. The switch from sole trader to limited company is often worth doing, but when looking at your cash flow, don't forget the corporation tax liability you will have in the limited company. (As a company can only pay dividends from realised profits there will be a CT liability).

Gareth, I'm afraid you are a bit out of touch. The days of an annual P35 return have gone as HMRC have moved on to real time processing. Now payroll payments have to be reported on a monthly basis where the payments for a month have to be reported by 19th of the month following. Later this year HMRC will be introducing fines of £100 for each late monthly return (similar to the fines for late CIS returns). The upside of this is that there is no need for an annual P35 return because HMRC have collected the info on a monthly basis. Once you have established a payroll scheme if in a month you don't make any payroll payments, you have to submit a nil return or HMRC will assume that you are in default and make an assessment of the PAYE and NIC they think you owe.

The problem in the village where I live is that when it floods and the numpties come out to showboat in their 4x4s, the bow waves they create sends water over peoples sandbags/flood defences into their homes.

Presumably this would be covered by his home insurance policy, so a call to his insurers may be advisable before making any commitment. They may have their own list of approved contractors or process for getting quotes.

I may be interested, can you send me the prices please?

Ditto softpress Freeway Hosted by Easily.co.uk Easily also do a web site builder package although i have never used it.

Treequip, I am pleased that you have had a positive experience with the police. After my experiences ( some serious car vandalism, 2 home burglaries, a car break in and several attempted break ins at my office) I am more cynical about them, their abilities and methods. Ignoring my own experiences, the attempt by the police to stitch up an MP over the Plebgate fiasco for purely political reasons, the Hillsborough cover up, kettling of innocent bystanders caught up in demonstrations (didn't one die after being assaulted by a delinquent copper?), does nothing to suggest that the boys in blue are the paragons of virtue that many think they are. In my area the newly elected police commissioner is an ex MP who had some errr difficulties with his expenses and didn't stand for re-election to Parliament. When my car was done recently it was one of seven parked outside a concert venue. Each "victim" was given the same crime number. A few months later the above mentioned commissioner was posing in the local rag bragging about how crime numbers were falling….lies, damn lies and statistics? Friends of mine have their own tales of incompetence including one recent incidence of a theft of phone and computer that had the app that could pin point the location of the device. Plod could not be arsed to get involved and did nothing. How would you have felt if you had a tracker in your chipper when it was stolen but the police did nothing about it? Another friend was burgled one night, one of several houses to suffer this fate. He lived in a village which has a single road in /out which is covered by CCTV. He knew the exact time of the breaking because the alarm went off. He told Plod and gave them details of where the CCTV was but advised the recordings were only kept for 14 days (operated by British transport police covering level crossings so the quality is A1 because they use results to prosecute anyone going through the gates on amber!). Guess what, they couldn't be arsed to do anything. Like I said, I am pleased that you have had a good experience with the police but I think you have been lucky and others have not been so fortunate.

Not sure I totally agree with this. If the claim for the damage to the tree can be quantified, notwithstanding any action the council may take for breach of the TPO, the householder can send a claim to the developer for his loss. If the developer doesn't pay or disputes the claim, the matter can be referred to the small claims court. The court will send a copy of the claim to the developer who then has the right to submit a defence a copy of which gets sent to the plaintiff. The small claims court will invite both sides to attend a hearing to discuss the matter and then give a judgement.

It is not unusual for trees to be "seen to" so that a developer is inconvenienced as little as possible. It is difficult to see from the pictures but why was the trench actually dug in the first place? This is one of those issues where the local authority will do everything it can to sweep this under the carpet. I know of an incident where a hotel built with an one storey more than it had planning permission for. There were all sorts of threats from the council planners but nothing happened. With this tree, there may be lots of hand wringing and threats of action against the developer (purely for PR purposes you understand) but in reality nothing will happen and it will soon be forgotten over christmas.

Try putting a "situations vacant" ad in a post office window in Warsaw, that'll sort it.

If you don't already have it, a search at Companies House will give his home address which will be included on the form notifying of his appointment as director of Green Delta Ltd . Costs £1 to get.