A gripe: No wonder TS are in a mess

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39175
    Nicky
    Participant

    We recently had a run of 3 identical appeals against RO determinations. All were sent to TS as out of jurisdiction appeals.

    2 have been struck out but the third is the subject of a directions notice. The judge has stated that “the respondent (us) states that the appeal is outside the jurisdiction of TS. This is correct.

    “The appellant is to respond within 14 days giving reasons why she feels the appeal should go ahead”.

    Sorry but what is the point anymore?

    #111195
    Anonymous
    Guest

    I know the feeling |(

    More appeal confusion..

    #111196
    Kevin D
    Participant

    The only point would be if the number of occupiers is at issue. Otherwise, I agree; a complete waste of time money and resources.

    #111198
    Nicky
    Participant

    nope – her appeal was purely that she was unhappy with the RO determination.

    #111200
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Rule 8(4): “the Tribunal may not strike out [the appeal] without first giving the appellant the opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out”

    #111201
    Anonymous
    Guest

    The tribunal are required to give the claimant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the striking out.

    As the tribunal does not have jurisdiction the appeal would be struck out under rule 8(2) of the FtT Rules. Rule 8(4) provides that where the striking out is under paragraph 2 or 3(b) or (c) the claimant must be given an opportunity to make representations.

    It may be that the judge(s) who struck out the other 2 appeals might not have complied with the Rules.

    HTH

    #111203
    peterdelamothe
    Keymaster

    Yes and those claimants can now appeal on error of law. So the third case judge may have saved time in the long run.

    #111280
    Nicky
    Participant

    Well you learn something new………….

    So it’s the rules that are to blame.

    #111286
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    [quote=Nicky]So it’s the rules that are to blame.[/quote] No, the other 2 Judges. 😀

    Edited to add: Not sure if the other 2 Judges actually did allow the 14 days to the other appellants so take that back. Don’t blame without having all the info.

    #111296
    Nicky
    Participant

    But what is the point of the law saying the claimant can make representations if a case is clearly outside TS jurisdiction?

    The last thing they need at the present time with cases over 2 years old still awaiting hearing is judges being bogged down by red tape.

    #111299
    Kay_Tade
    Participant

    I guess it’s like everything else, in a democratic and law bound society, everyone SHOULD have an opportunity to dispute a decision[Up to a point] before the lights go out, so to speak. The appellant should have the opportunity to make representations in relation to a “strike out”.

    You never know, the LA, Judge and other parties concerned MIGHT just be wrong. But I take your point, with the current situation it doesn’t help.

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.