With 75% of PIP Tribunal appeals resulting in an overturned decision, isn’t it time the Government accepted recommendations from the Second Independent Review to improve trust and transparency?
With 75% of PIP Tribunal appeals resulting in an overturned decision, isn’t it time the Government accepted recommendations from the Second Independent Review to improve trust and transparency?
First publication date: 13th October 2019, 17:02 (BST).
Why does the British justice system expect the impossible?
Why does the British justice system expect the impossible?
Liverpool Civil & Family Court, Vernon Street, Liverpool, L2 2BX
This is a tale of Janet and John (which for the purposes of doubt and copyright law are not characters in books to teach children how to read).
Janet and John are instead in the Kafkaesque world of the British justice system. This is a world where the normal rules of time and space don’t apply!
Janet, John and another quite sensibly decided to settle their respective differences by consent order at a public hearing 9 months ago, but then came a 9 month legal argument about costs.
She asked the Tribunal to issue costs directions at a hearing. The Judge ruled that he and his fellow Tribunal Members would decide on her costs application.
Janet wanted John to pay her employer £1,212. She explained in her costs application that she had sent John letters stating the information he had requested was on a website (when it fact she admitted at the hearing it wasn’t on a website) and therefore John should pay her for £1,212 which included time spent sending him those letters.
The Judge ruled that he and his fellow two members would decide on her costs application once Janet made it.
John replied to the costs application, disputing what Janet stated. On a 2:1 decision it was decided that he hadn’t acted unreasonably between the 4th August 2016 and the 22nd August 2016 (which covered the first two of her letters). So, £224.66 of her costs application was rejected on that basis.
That left £967.57, which was reduced by a further £467.57 to £500.
John paid Janet’s employer the £500, but then pointed out that as part of her costs application had been about a time when the Tribunal had ruled him reasonable, that part of his costs in responding to the costs application should be paid by Janet. He saw this only as fair and asked for a much lower amount of £212.20.
The Judge decided not to decide on this costs application and threatened John with a wasted costs order if he didn’t shut up.
So John requested permission to appeal (both against the £500 costs order and against the non-decision over the £212.20 costs application).
Over 9 months later after his costs application for £212.20, he received the permission to appeal decision (which was denied).
In it, the Judge demanded (in a communication sent to John on the 25th July 2017) that he (John) must send an email by 4 pm on the 15th March 2017.
Like Janet he expected John to do the impossible and threatened him with further financial problems if he did not!
So that is my brief summary of the state of the British justice system, it expects the impossible from parties and when it doesn’t manage to achieve the impossible, the parties are supposed to pay the price and again for it through taxes!
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Advertise on johnbrace.com and reach over 36,000 visitors a month from only £60 a month
Last month (April 2016) saw 36,531 visitors to this blog viewing a total of 270,122 pages.
A text link to a website of your choice (with 1 or 2 sentences of advertising copy around it) in the right sidebar above the “Search this blog” box is available for only £70 a month.
In this prominent place above the fold, your link be seen on all pages and by all visitors to this blog.
If you’d like to try out advertising on this blog for a month at £70 for the first month, then please order it on this page.
If you’d like to order more than a month of advertising, discounts are available. For a year of advertising, you receive a discount of two months free (12 months for the price of 10).
Ordering multiple adverts also triggers a discount. For advertising for longer than a month, for multiple adverts or for other types of advertising, please don’t use the order page for this and instead email john@johnbrace.com with your requirements for a bespoke quote.
Please note that all orders for advertising must comply with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and a list of what is not allowed in advertising can be found here.
All advertising on this blog will be labelled as such so that visitors to this blog do not mistake it for editorial content.
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Is this what an “open and transparent” Council looks like?
Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.
If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.
Public Question Time 14th December 2015 where I ask a question to Councillor Adrian Jones
In his answer Cllr Adrian Jones states that Wirral Council is being “open and transparent”.
I provide below four pages from what Wirral Council supplied when I requested the Highway Services Contract that Wirral Council have with Bam Nuttall on which millions of pounds are spent each year.
These first two pages (according to the preceding page) are to do with the NRSWA Team (whatever that stands for). This team is described as “a separate team of 4 inspectors monitoring utility works and repeat defects. This team could integrate with the highway teams”
As usual the thumbnails link to higher resolution versions of the same image.
Bam Nuttall contract Service Breakdown Structure page 1 of 2 thumbnailBam Nuttall contract Service Breakdown Structure page 2 of 2 thumbnail
Next is an email detailing some last minutes changes to the contract. The unnamed author of this email receives this blog’s first ever Sir Humphrey Appleby award for the sentence “Please find attached a revised copy of P112 of Volume 1, which now includes the omitted Tender Amendment relating to the uplift on rates for Coastal Defence Work in tidal conditions, and an additional page for Volume 3 Method of Measurement to be inserted in the Preamble, which compiles the clarifications issued during the tender period in connection with Price List Bandings into a coherent single document.”
Bam Nuttall contract email thumbnail
Finally, even the author of the Scottish Power Energy Network’s guide to connecting street lights to the mains electricity gets the black box treatment.
Bam Nuttall contract SP Energy Networks Connection Registration and Management thumbnail
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
Happy Christmas 2015 to all the readers of this blog. I hope you are all enjoying Christmas Day (or whenever you read this) whatever you are doing.
My holidays start on Christmas Day and I won’t be writing new posts during Christmas 2015, but will return to posting new stories on this blog in January 2016.
I hope everyone enjoys the Christmas season and the New Year. Happy Christmas!
If you click on any of these buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people. Thanks:
