Trent Wallis Photography

Scottish Water Financial Reimbursement Agreement

by on Oct.07, 2021, under Uncategorized

[10] Under the transitional arrangements, Mr. Martin Bradbury was appointed Chief Operating Officer, Mr. Nick Sumption was Chief Commercial Officer and Mr. George Sloss was the Project Leader. Mr. Sumption was responsible, inter alia, for the negotiation and agreement of commercial contracts. Mr. Sloss` mission was to coordinate the project management activities that SWS staff were to carry out by the inter-two project directors and managers. He was not expected to be responsible for negotiating and concluding trade agreements within the SWS. One. We require that all assets forming part of an application be completed and transferred to Scottish Water prior to payment, z.B. If you have a remediation application containing a SUDS, Fault Sewer and Surface Water asset, we will not make the payment until all three assets are unshakable. Q.

Will you pay for water and wastewater independently of the other? [63] I found that MUL had not demonstrated that it had entered into a binding agreement with SWS, that SWS would pay it for work in the Lothian and Borders area as part of a contract to replace the merged contract. The action therefore fails. One. We will only be able to deliver assets that have no dependence on other upstream or downstream wastewater treatment plants. If there is an addiction, we can only invest if the addictions are unshakable, for example.B. If a site`s Phase 2 is dependent on the assets that are part of the Phase 1 application, we can only display the Phase 2 assets after the first phase assets are unshakable. [18] Mr. George Sloss did his best to tell the truth.

He made it clear in his evidence that he understood the meeting with MM. Carr and Leach as an informal “conversation” about future agreements and that he was then aware that he did not have the power to retain SWS. I accept that he was not aware of the structure of the merged treaty between SW and MUL and the problems encountered by MUL with the Lothian and Borders work, except as Mr Carr told him at that meeting. In his evidence, he stated that he had made it clear that MUL had to address all issues related to Lothian and Borders` work with SW and that he was not entitled to make offers in this regard on behalf of SWS. He also said it was very clear that he could not make a commitment on behalf of SWS. While I do not question Mr Sloss` credibility, I am not convinced that he reliably remembers what he clearly said to Mr Carr and Mr Leach. As I have already said, the correspondence written by MUL officials shortly after the meeting supports the idea that there was an agreement within MUL that the parties had reached an agreement or understanding at the meeting, which MUL had subsequently obtained confirmation from SWS. If Mr Sloss had presented his point of view as clearly as he had proposed, it would be unlikely that the MUL staff had written the letters under the conditions they had written.

Nevertheless, I accept that at the time he did not think he had reached a binding agreement. I accept evidence from Mr Bradbury and Mr Michael Beirne that Mr Sloss never told them that he had reached an agreement with MUL regarding work in Lothian and Borders. [17] Mr. Graham Carr, Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of MUL, was a credible witness. He was upright in his evidence and answered questions openly.

No comments for this entry yet...

Comments are closed.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still haven't found what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or so I can take care of it!

Archives

All entries, chronologically...