QUOTE (mashkiach @ Thu, 11 Nov 2010 - 15:47)
QUOTE (PRg @ Thu, 11 Nov 2010 - 15:28)
Any chance you can post it up as an image (screenshot perhaps)? I, and a lot of members here wont touch PDF files.
just done it with
http://www.convertpdftoimage.com/Default.aspxI have read every single word from each contributor, and reply using the OP's quote for everyone's convenience when this post is read, though not mine at present, since it does not appear as I write this, so I refer to my handwritten notes, copied verbatim from the decision. Now would seem the time to be proactive rather than reactive..................
1. Assuming the OP wishes to contest this and seek a review, either at PATAS or a JR at the High Court, it would be essential to be privy to
all documents concerning this matter. OP, what do you say to that suggestion?
2. I am not prepared to take a stab in the dark; but, obviously, I share everyone's disappointment regarding this decision for reasons already eloquently expressed.
3. It would seem to me that, in order to be able to even obtain a review of this decision, thereby strongly suggesting that the adjudicator has fallen into error, and it is in the interests of justice that a review should take place, we really do need to see those documents urgently and introduce fresh evidence and arguments in support.
4. I have my own views regarding the issues, in particular the wholly unreasonable and, indeed, presumptuous reasoning surrounding the service/date of receipt issue. And, indeed, there has been a famous case regarding this concerning the issue of a NIP some years back, which involved a postal strike, and which was resolved in favour of the appellant - please note, PATAS, if you are watching, the correct spelling of this epithet. From experience last May, quid multa - to cut a long story short, DD! - I, myself, delayed going to work, thus losing money, for a whole two weeks in order to be at home when the post was delivered so as to obtain a witness statement from the postman as, according to a perceived threat from my favourite Council, I wanted proof of date of service - rather, receipt - of a NIP. (Thankfully, this never arrived.) Therefore, the adjudicators remarks in this regard are not just wholly unreasonable, but also totally impractical, as has already been expressed.
So, if we or a few trusted members could receive what is necessary in order to assist - and I trust that others will include me in that category - I am prepared to help, as is my best mate who, as fate would have it, was a solicitor and is now a postman! - in the preparation of any application for a review. Indeed, as a down-to-earth Cambridge graduate etc and maverick such as I am, having helped me in all sorts of legal areas over the last ten years, not least a similar case such as this, which is still live, we would both relish the challenge.
Regards
S. (Son of a Welsh miner and practitioner of "the universal language of mankind" i.e. musician!)
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 12 Nov 2010 - 00:19)
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 12 Nov 2010 - 00:11)
.............If the suggestion there is that by (helpfully) explaining the Reg on service (not a requirement) they have created the potential for prejudice then it could only be the law itself that would need to be challenged. The Adjudicator could not possibly find on that point as far as I have read. ..........
Sorry to labour this but they haven't helpfully explained the rules on service. They have incorrectly defined it as the date of delivery.
It isn't the date of delivery.
It is the prescribed assumed date unless proven to the contrary.
No apologies needed, as far as I am concerned, pater!
Just posting this again, as it seems to be positioned at the top of my list, in case it is missed.