Sunday 8th July 2018 – Soot Falling Down Chimney, Because of Hot Weather?

I’ve noticed rumblings of soot falling down the chimney over the last few days. I’ve never experienced this before, and I’ve lived in my current house for several years.

I reassured myself early on that there wasn’t a bird down the chimney, as there was no flapping, cooing, or tweeting.

As this has coincided with the prolonged period of extremely hot weather. I have deduced that the extreme atmospheric dryness has loosened chunks of soot in my chimney (which I haven’t used for years, so it must be ancient, caked-on, soot).

I wasn’t particularly concerned until I noticed that fine soot had deposited around my gas fireplace. So I’ve vacuumed around it, and sealed up the fire with a plastic bag, taped into place.

My neighbours have been experiencing the same over the last few days, and were puzzled as to what was happening, until I discussed the matter with one of them yesterday.   I would strongly advise anyone that has experienced soot falling down the chimney to remove the soot before using the fire, otherwise there could be a risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, or chimney catching fire.

Posted in Health, Slowly rotting, Uncategorized | Tagged , ,

Friday 29th June 2018 – “Richard Redgrave” (Head of Customer Investigations) HMCTS Customer Service Team, 6th Floor (6.02), 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ Responds To My Complaint (re: RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS for ChB 1st, ChB 2nd, & PIP 1st) – DUPLICATION

I have today received a duplication of the response that I received yesterday from  “Richard Redgrave” (Head of Customer Investigations) HMCTS.  He is responding to the escalated complaint that I sent on 5th June 2018 to:

HMCTS Customer Service Team, 6th Floor (6.02), 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ

Primarily, it concerns the refusal/failure of Judges (Verman, Ramsay, etc.) to provide word for word typed copies of their handwritten RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS for my ChB 1st, ChB 2nd, and PIP 1st Appeals.

Richard Redgrave wrote:

Our final reply to your complaint 

Thank you for your letter of 3 June about your benefit appeals.  I’m sorry to hear you’re unhappy with the way we’ve handled your complaint so far.  I understand that you’ve been trying to get typed copies of Record of Proceedings for some time.  I can see how frustrating this has been for you.

I’ve checked all the details and based on the information we have, I won’t be upholding your complaint.  I’ve explained the reason for my decision below.

How I made my decision

  • We put your requests before the judges involved but they’ve decided not to provide typed copies of Record of Proceedings.
  • Judges are completely independent, so we don’t have any influence over what they do or decide.
  • There’s no requirement in the Procedural Rules or in the Practice Statement issued by the Senior President that ROP to be typed.
  • It’s for the judge who dealt with the hearing to decide whether their notes are sufficient.

I realise you’ll be disappointed – I’m sorry we’re not able to provide you with what you want. 

If you’re still unhappy with our response

This letter is our final reply to you in line with our complaints procedure, we won’t be writing to you about this again.

If you’re unhappy with how I’ve handled your complaint, you can ask a member of parliament (MP) to pass your case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). The Ombudsman can only look at complaints about UK government departments and agencies when an MP refers them.

How to pass your complaint to the Ombudsman

  1. Go to http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-complaint
  2. Check the information to see if they can help you – the Ombudsman cannot review all types of complaint.
  3. Download a complaint form from the Ombudsman’s website.
  4. Go to findyourmp.parliament.uk to find your local MP’s details.
  5. Fill in the Ombudsman’s form and send it to your MP.

Your MP will then pass your complaint to the Ombudsman and get the process started.

Yours sincerely

Richard Redgrave

Head of Customer Investigations “

Posted in 1st Child Benefit Appeal, 1st PIP Claim, 2nd Child Benefit Appeal, Child Benefit, Complaint, DWP, HMCTS, HMRC, Judge A. Ramsay, Judge Mrs J. Verman, Judges, Legal, Personal Independence Payment, Record of Proceedings, Slowly rotting, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday 28th June 2018 – “Richard Redgrave” (Head of Customer Investigations) HMCTS Customer Service Team, 6th Floor (6.02), 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ Responds To My Complaint (re: RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS for ChB 1st, ChB 2nd, & PIP 1st)

Today, I’ve received a letter from “Richard Redgrave” (Head of Customer Investigations) HMCTS.  He is responding to the escalated complaint that I sent on 5th June 2018 to:

HMCTS Customer Service Team, 6th Floor (6.02), 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ

Primarily, it concerns the refusal/failure of Judges (Verman, Ramsay, etc.) to provide word for word typed copies of their handwritten RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS for my ChB 1st, ChB 2nd, and PIP 1st Appeals.

Richard Redgrave wrote:

Our final reply to your complaint

Thank you for your letter of 3 June about your benefit appeals.  I’m sorry to hear you’re unhappy with the way we’ve handled your complaint so far.  I understand that you’ve been trying to get typed copies of Record of Proceedings for some time.  I can see how frustrating this has been for you.

I’ve checked all the details and based on the information we have, I won’t be upholding your complaint.  I’ve explained the reason for my decision below.

How I made my decision

  • We put your requests before the judges involved but they’ve decided not to provide typed copies of Record of Proceedings.
  • Judges are completely independent, so we don’t have any influence over what they do or decide.
  • There’s no requirement in the Procedural Rules or in the Practice Statement issued by the Senior President that ROP to be typed.
  • It’s for the judge who dealt with the hearing to decide whether their notes are sufficient.

I realise you’ll be disappointed – I’m sorry we’re not able to provide you with what you want. 

If you’re still unhappy with our response

This letter is our final reply to you in line with our complaints procedure, we won’t be writing to you about this again.

If you’re unhappy with how I’ve handled your complaint, you can ask a member of parliament (MP) to pass your case to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (the Ombudsman). The Ombudsman can only look at complaints about UK government departments and agencies when an MP refers them.

How to pass your complaint to the Ombudsman

  1. Go to http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/making-complaint
  2. Check the information to see if they can help you – the Ombudsman cannot review all types of complaint.
  3. Download a complaint form from the Ombudsman’s website.
  4. Go to findyourmp.parliament.uk to find your local MP’s details.
  5. Fill in the Ombudsman’s form and send it to your MP.

Your MP will then pass your complaint to the Ombudsman and get the process started.

Yours sincerely

Richard Redgrave

Head of Customer Investigations “

 

 

I might refer to this later, that I’ve just chanced across online:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Practice+Directions/Tribunals/RecordofproceedingsinSocialSecurityandChildSupportcasesintheSocialEntitlementChamber.pdf

Posted in 1st Child Benefit Appeal, 1st PIP Claim, 2nd Child Benefit Appeal, Child Benefit, Complaint, DWP, HMCTS, HMRC, Judge A. Ramsay, Judge Miss J. R. Beale, Judge Mrs J. Verman, Judges, Legal, Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman, Personal Independence Payment, Record of Proceedings, Slowly rotting, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday 9th June 2018 – After Waiting 6 Months For Response From Child Maintenance Service, I COMPLAIN Again!

On the 27th November 2017, I sent a written COMPLAINT ESCALATION  to the Child Maintenance Service, via Recorded Delivery. (They Signed for it on the 29th Nov 2017).

As of 9th June 2018, I still have not received any response from the CMS to this escalated complaint!

So today I am writing a new COMPLAINT, to complain that I am yet to receive any response to my ESCALATED COMPLAINT of 27/11/17, I’ll send it off via Recorded Delivery again, the next time I’m by a Post Office.

 

Posted in Child Maintenance Service, Complaint, Slowly rotting, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , ,

Tuesday 5th June 2018 – I Escalate My Complaint (re: Lack of Typed Records of Proceedings for ChB1, ChB2 & PIP1) To HMCTS Customer Service Team, 102 Petty France, SW1H 9AJ

I sent an ESCALATED COMPLAINT via Recorded Delivery today, to:

HMCTS Customer Service Team, 6th Floor (6.02), 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ

Primarily, it concerns the refusal of Judges (Verman, Ramsay) to provide word for word typed copies of their handwritten RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS for my ChB 1st, ChB 2nd, and PIP 1st Appeals.

I wrote:

COMPLAINT ESCALATION

Dear HMCTS Customer Service Team,

I am writing to escalate my complaints, because HMCTS Birmingham have informed me that the production of a typed Record Of Proceedings is not standard practice.
So for several of my own benefit appeals, I have specifically, and repeatedly, asked for a word-for-word typed copy of the Records Of Proceedings, as some of them, or parts of them, are difficult/impossible to read!

In my detailed emails up to and including 14th December 2017, I wrote:
“The RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS is part of the appeal bundle, and as such, any written evidence produced by HMCTS or the Judiciary ought to be readable by parties such as myself. I have requested word for word transcripts of the RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS for 3 of my appeals (2x ChB, & 1 x PIP (1st)). I still require them.

In the reported decision of CB v HMRC and AE (CHB) [2016] UKUT 0506 (AAC), Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley clearly directed:
(5) The First-tier Tribunal office should arrange for a typed copy of the record of proceedings for the previous hearing on 1 May 2015 to be made available for the next hearing.

Yet Judge Verman and Judge Ramsay have both FAILED/REFUSED to issue me with word for word typed copies of the RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS for the 1st PIP Appeal in 2015 (the clerk gave the incorrect PIP appeal ref in his letter of 3rd January 2018 (& he also got the year wrong too, writing 2017 instead!), and the 2 x ChB Appeals. This resulted in not all of the appeal bundles being readable by me!

I therefore want my complaint escalated, and investigated, and for HMCTS to confirm that all letters/documents produced by HMCTS and the Judiciary ought to be easily readable by all parties, and that my repeated requests for word for word typed copies of RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS should have been granted.
It took 2 years of repeated requests for Judge Ramsay to even deign to reply to my request, with her terse response that it would not be typed! Judge Verman was similarly abrupt and unhelpful!

Yours Sincerely”

Posted in 1st Child Benefit Appeal, 1st PIP Claim, 2nd Child Benefit Appeal, Child Benefit, Civil Service, Complaint, DWP, HMCTS, HMRC, Judge A. Ramsay, Judge Miss J. R. Beale, Judge Mrs J. Verman, Judge Nicholas Wikeley - Upper Tribunal, Judges, Legal, Personal Independence Payment, Record of Proceedings, Royal Mail, Slowly rotting, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Judicial Roll Call – Encompassing 3 Years of (mostly) Judicial Failure, re: My ChB 2nd Appeal

This Child Benefit Appeal covers the 3 month period from early June 2015 to early September 2015, and is completely separate from the ChB 1st Appeal.  My daughter stopped living at her dad’s house, and resided at my house again. Her dad pretended that our daughter still lived with him, so that he could continue to fraudulently claim Child Benefit, & CSA maintenance from me, & reduce his CSA payments to me.

15th Mar 2016 – Judge Keith Wilding REFUSES/FAILS to issue Directions I’d requested. One of my requests was for the Tribunal to issue a DIRECTION/ORDER to obtain my daughter’s mobile phone tracking data for this 3 month material period, which would have proven conclusively that my daughter went nowhere near her dad’s house for several weeks, and certainly wasn’t living there any more. But Judge Keith Wilding simply stated in the DIRECTIONS NOTICE that “These are not directions that the Tribunal is able or willing to make.”

18th Oct 2016 – At today’s Hearing,  Judge Miss J. R. Beale adds my Ex as a Party to Proceedings.  Judge Miss J. R. Beale REFUSES/FAILS  to order the obtaining of my daughter’s mobile phone tracking data/records,  which would have proven conclusively that my daughter went nowhere near her dad’s house for several weeks, and certainly wasn’t living there any more.  The handwritten RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  was difficult/impossible to read in parts, though I could see that Judge Beale had referenced our discussion about me wanting to obtain daughter’s tracking data/records.    However, in the actual ADJOURNMENT NOTICE  from this date, Judge Beale NEGLECTS TO MENTION the discussion of my request to obtain daughter’s mobile phone records/tracking data,  and her REFUSAL/FAILURE to issue my perfectly reasonable request!

8th May 2017 – Judge J. Verman REFUSES my Appeal.  This is despite me providing lots of proof (unlike my Ex) of me financially supporting my daughter, and evidence of my daughter living with me.  Judge J. Verman FAILED/REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO QUESTION THE RESPONDENT(S), or to request Directions!      Judge Verman’s DECISION NOTICE states that:    “The tribunal [sole panel member Judge Vermanfinds that the appellant [me] is not entitled to the Child Benefit because benefit has already been paid to another person for this period. The regulations prevent duplicate payments of Child Benefit.”    [This is because HMRC/Child Benefit Office REPEATEDLY FAILED/REFUSED  to strip my Ex of his entitlement to Child Benefit for this material period, and their incompetence is reinforced by the refusals/failures of Judge Keith Wilding Judge Miss J. R. Beale to obtain my daughter’s mobile phone tracking data/records, which would have proven conclusively that my daughter went nowhere near her dad’s house for several weeks, and certainly wasn’t living there any more, but was instead at mine.]

13th Aug 2017 – I thoroughly dissect, and heavily criticise Judge J. Verman’s STATEMENT OF REASONS, especially as some of her rationale is distinctly at odds with her reasoning in the 1st ChB Appeal, though it inexplicably finds in my Ex’s favour again.    So I formally request that her original Decision of the 8th of May 2017 is “Set Aside”, and that if the Decision is not “Set Aside”, that I also request permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

23rd Aug 2017 – Judge J. Verman issues a DECISION NOTICE, in which she REFUSES/FAILS to “Set Aside” her Decision of 8th May 2017, & also REFUSES/FAILS  to grant me permission to Appeal to the Upper Tribunal.  It reads:

  1. “It is not appropriate to review the decision because I am not satisfied there is any error of law in the Tribunal’s decision [sole panel member Judge J. Verman].  It is clear from reading the appellant’s letter [me] that she disagrees with the decision of the tribunal  [sole panel member Judge J. Verman]. However it is also clear that the reasons she disagrees is because her view of the facts is different to that of the tribunal  [sole panel member Judge J. Verman]. The sole decider of the facts is the tribunal  [sole panel member Judge J. Verman] which has adequately explained why it has reached its decision.”
  2. Permission to appeal [to the Upper Tribunal] is refused. No arguable question of law is disclosed by the application (for the reasons set out above).”

23rd Oct 2017 – Upper Tribunal Judge Kate Markus QC REFUSES/FAILS to “Set Aside” Judge  J. Verman’s FTT Decision of 8th May 2017, & also REFUSES/FAILS to grant me permission to Appeal.

20th Nov 2017 – My claim for a Judicial Review was issued by the Royal Courts of Justice today.

31st Jan 2018 – The Honourable Mrs Justice Lambert REFUSES me permission to apply for a Judicial Review for this ChB 2nd Appeal.

Reasons:

  • The application does not raise an arguable case which has a reasonable prospect of success that both the decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing permission to appeal and the decision of the First Tier Tribunal against which permission to appeal was sought are wrong in law.  The application does not raise an important point of principle or practice nor is there any compelling reason to hear the claim.
  • For the reasons given by Judge Markus, the judge of the FTT  [Judge Verman] was entitled to reach the conclusions on the disputed issues of fact before her.  The Judge of the FTT  [Judge Vermanset out the issues of factual dispute and the evidence which she heard concerning those disputes: that evidence included oral and documentary evidence from the Claimant on the points in dispute. She set out the reasons for her conclusions. There was no error in her approach. Furthermore, for the reasons set out in the decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing the application for permission to appeal, the Claimant would not, as a matter of law, be entitled to child benefit before 7th September 2015.
  • The Claimant’s grounds include a claim that the FTT procedure was flawed in that documents were not in the bundle and the Claimant only gave evidence on matters which were not already dealt with sufficiently in the hearing bundle. It is clear however that the Claimant gave evidence on the relevant matters at the FTT. The application for the HMCTS to produce phone tracking data had been rejected many months before the hearing before the FTT. In any event for the reasons set out by the Judge [Kate Markus QC] of the Upper Tribunal, such evidence would not have assisted the Claimant.”

So, Judge Keith Wilding, Judge Miss J. R. Beale, both  REFUSE/FAIL  to order the obtaining of my daughter’s mobile phone tracking data/records,  which would have proven conclusively that my daughter went nowhere near her dad’s house for several weeks, and certainly wasn’t living there any more.

Then,  Judge J. Verman FAILED/REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO QUESTION THE RESPONDENT(S), or to request Directions! As well as evaluating the other evidence in what I politely describe as a shoddy and woefully substandard fashion.

Their consecutive failures were then judged to be actually quite okay by Upper Tribunal Judge Kate Markus QC, & then by The Honourable Mrs Justice Lambert.

(I’ll continue writing more later………)

 

Posted in 2nd Child Benefit Appeal, Child Benefit, HMCTS, HMRC, Judge Kate Markus QC - Upper Tribunal, Judge Keith Wilding, Judge Miss J. R. Beale, Judge Mrs J. Verman, Judges, Judicial Review, Legal, Record of Proceedings, Royal Courts Of Justice, Slowly rotting, The Honourable Mrs Justice Lambert, The Upper Tribunal Office (Administrative Appeals Chamber), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Judicial Roll Call – Encompassing 5 Years of (mostly) Judicial Failure, re: My ChB 1st Appeal

[This is just a brief summary……..]

 

12th Dec 2013 – HMRC’s Child Benefit Office officially receive my new Child Benefit application (re: my daughter). I request backdating to 1st Aug 2013, as she moved into her then-boyfriend’s house during July 2013. Her dad was still claiming Child Benefit, but he wasn’t using the money to financially support her, whereas I was  helping to support her.

13th Aug 2014 – Judge Janet Ward issues a Directions Notice, adding my Ex as a Party To Proceedings.     [Fair enough]

23rd Sept 2014 – Judge Miss R. L. Campbell issues a Directions Notice, in response to me possibly wanting to pause my Appeal.   [Fair enough]

29th Oct 2014 – Judge S. D. Ennals issues a Directions Notice, directing me to provide proof that my daughter was living with me from 12/12/13 to present (29/10/14).  [I’ve never claimed  that my daughter resided with me for the material period of Aug 2013 to mid-April 2014! My daughter moved out of her dad’s house at some point in July 2013 into her then-boyfriend’s house, where she lived for 9 months until mid-April 2014, then she moved back into her dad’s house. She then briefly lived with a different boyfriend for a bit, then moved back into her dad’s house again.]

14th Nov 2014 – I formally request, in writing, that HMCTS issue several DIRECTIONS, to compel HMRC, College, Jobcentre, & others, to provide evidence that would support my claim.

21st Jan 2015 – Judge S. D. Ennals issues a Directions Notice, he writes:  “She [me] is reminded again that the issue in this appeal is whether she meets the conditions of entitlement to Child Benefit, from the date of her claim, or indeed for any period before that claim. It is not appropriate to issue the directions she seeks, as they are not likely to provide evidence to support her claim, whether or not they undermine the claim of [daughter’s]  father.”          [My daughter actually updated HMRC, her College, and the Jobcentre with her new address (then-boyfriend’s address) whilst she was living with boyfriend.   If Judge S. D. Ennals had actually issued the Directions I’d sought, they would have provided strong proof that would have supported my claim.]

1st May 2015 – Judge G. I. Marsh decides at this First Tier Tribunal to refuse my Appeal (ie I have lost). He writes in his Decision Notice:  “The appellant [me] is not entitled to Child Benefit for [daughter] on date of claim or any date before that. [Daughter] had not lived with her since the end of August 2011. She moved to live with her father who had claimed Child Benefit and was still receiving Child Benefit at the appellant’s date of claim.”   [Yep, this is because my Ex continued to claim Child Benefit, despite daughter not living with him, and he wasn’t using the money he obtained to support daughter].  The handwritten Record of Proceedings I subsequently received wasn’t totally legible.

13th Aug 2015 – Judge N. P. Sellar issues Decision Notice, in which he/she fails to “Set Aside” Judge G. I. Marsh’s FTT Decision of 1/5/15, & also refuses to grant me permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

26th Nov 2015 – The Upper Tribunal Office officially receives my Application for permission & Notice of Appeal.

10th May 2016 – Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley issues Observations On Application For Permission To Appeal, Directions in which I’m asked to indicate whether I want my application to be ruled on as it stands, or to have extra time so that I may be able to obtain advice from BarProBono, & if so, how long.    [Fair enough]

4th July 2016 –  Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley issues Notice Of Determination Of Application For Permission To Appeal, Case Management Directions.  He also grants me permission to appeal, giving his Reasons.   [Jolly good!]

19th Sept 2016 – Elisa Collins (for the Commissioners of HMRC (Technical)) provides a very detailed and excellently considered submission to the Upper Tribunal, in which she submits that the FTT on 1/5/15 erred in law, & Elisa Collins (for the Commissioners of HMRC (Technical)) SUPPORTS MY APPEAL!          [Excellent news!]

9th Nov 2016 – Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley “Sets Aside” Judge G. I. Marsh’s FTT Decision of 1/5/15, concluding that the FTT erred twice in law!       [Superb!]

CB v HMRC and AE (CHB) [2016] UKUT 0506 (AAC)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/58340846e5274a702500001c/CF_3390_2015-00.pdf

30th Nov 2016 – HMCTS Birmingham receive written confirmation from my daughter’s then-boyfriend’s mother (a leading solicitor) confirming that my daughter resided with her then-boyfriend’s family for the material period (Jul/Aug 2013 to April 2014), that she wasn’t aware of daughter’s father providing any financial support to daughter, but that I did contribute to daughter financially.              [ This is the pivotal evidence that should have led to me winning my appeal. But subsequent Judges continued with their substandard and unjust decisions….]

7th Dec 2016 – Judge N. P. Sellar issues DIRECTIONS NOTICE.  It confirms the FTT Decision of 1/5/15 has been “Set Aside” by the Upper Tribunal.   Judge G. I. Marsh and Judge N. P. Sellar are both excluded from the future new FTT Appeal.       [Fair enough]

24th April 2017 –  Judge J. Verman at freshly constituted First Tier Tribunal FAILS/REFUSES to Allow/Grant my Appeal  [I lose again].  This is despite the pivotal written evidence from daughter’s then-boyfriend’s mother, in which she confirms that my daughter resided as part of her family for the material period!!!    Judge Mrs J. Verman soaked up my Ex’s lies as a simple sponge soaks up water…….

21st May 2017 – I request a STATEMENT OF REASONS, RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS, & word for word typed copy of RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS.

27th June 2017 – I receive Judge J. Verman’s STATEMENT OF REASONS & hand-scrawled RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  (some of which is hard/impossible to read!).

23rd July 2017 – I formally request that Judge J. Verman’s Decision of 24/4/17 is “Set Aside”.   I thoroughly criticise Judge J. Verman’s reasoning. I also request permission to Appeal to Upper Tribunal if Judge J. Verman doesn’t set aside her Decision.

8th Aug 2017 – Judge J. Verman FAILS/REFUSES to “Set Aside” her Decision of 24/4/17, & also REFUSES me Permission To Appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Her DECISION NOTICE states:   “1. It is not appropriate to review the decision because I am not satisfied there is any error of law in the Tribunal’s decision. [There was only 1 panel member – Judge J. Verman].  The appellant states that she is extremely disappointed with the FTT decision, especially as the Upper Tribunal has already bounced it back once already. The Upper Tribunal decision at paragraph 30 states that there will need to be a fresh hearing of the appeal before a new tribunal. I should make it clear that I am making no finding, nor indeed expressing any view, on whether or not the mother is entitled to child benefit for [daughter] for the material period. In order to be granted permission to appeal the appellant must show that the tribunal made an error of law. It is clear that the appellant disagrees with the decision of the tribunal [sole panel member Judge J. Verman]. However, it is also clear that the reason she disagrees is because her view of the facts is different to that of the tribunal. The sole decider of the facts is the tribunal [sole panel member Judge J. Verman]  which has adequately explained why it has reached its decision.   2. Permission to appeal is refused. No arguable question of law is disclosed by the application – for the reasons set out above.”

29th Aug 2017 – I Apply for Permission & Notice of Appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

20th Sept 2017 – Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley REFUSES my application for permission to appeal.

31st Oct 2017 – I send my request for a Judicial Review (re: ChB 1st) to Royal Courts of Justice.  I’ve never done one of these before. As usual, I have no legal help whatsoever. Still, I’m quite proud of how I manage to put my application together.  Paperwork gets ping-ponged unnecessarily over the next few weeks, partly due to the antics of the Royal Courts of Justice Administrative Office.

9th Nov 2017 – I formally complain to HMCTS, as I’d requested a word for word typed copy of Judge J. Verman’s RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS for this Appeal more than 5 months ago. I wrote that “I believe it is incumbent on HMCTS to ensure that everything that HMCTS and the Judiciary produce, is clear to read by an Appellant (me). Due to the nature of the handwriting, not all of it is understandable.”

15th Jan 2018 – Judge J. Verman issues a rather abrupt DECISION NOTICE:     “The Record of Proceedings will not be typed. There is no suggestion that the Record of Proceedings is not readable in this case. Permission to appeal was refused on the 8/8/17.”          [Clearly, there is more than a suggestion that some of the Record of Proceedings is difficult/impossible to read, otherwise I wouldn’t have continued to press for a typed copy!  They may make perfect sense to Judge J. Verman, after all, she ought to be able to decipher her own handwriting. That does not mean that they are easily readable by anybody else!]

25th April 2018 – His Honour Judge Blackett REFUSES me permission to apply for a Judicial Review.  He gives the briefest of Reasons:

  1. There is no arguable case which has any prospect of success. The decision of the Upper Tribunal refusing permission to appeal and the decision of the First Tribunal are not wrong in law. The Claimant simply disagrees with the decision and wishes to re-litigate: this is not the purpose of Judicial Review.
  2. The claim does not raise an important point of principle or practice and there is no other compelling reason to hear it.

CPR 54.7A applies to this case. By virtue of CPR 54.7A(8) the decision to refuse permission is final and rule 54.12(3) (request for reconsideration at a hearing) does not apply.

 

How on Earth can Judge Blackett say my claim doesn’t raise an important point of principle or practice, when for several years HMRC/Child Benefit Office (& the CSA) have consistently FAILED  to contact the family of my daughter’s then-boyfriend to establish the material living arrangements for the material period, by insisting they are prevented by law from contacting such a “third party”!!!

Also, my Ex was added to my Appeal as a Party, and received an appeal bundle. Yet because his own claim never made it to HMCTS, I never got to see the bullshit that he has been spinning to the Child Benefit Office over the last few years.  I maintain that my claim did raise important legal principles. I truly believe that British “Justice” has failed me.

[I might elaborate further, if I get the chance, I’ve got hundreds/thousands more posts to  write]

 

Posted in 1st Child Benefit Appeal, Child Benefit, HMCTS, HMRC, Judge G. I. Marsh, Judge Janet Ward, Judge Jeff Blackett - His Honour, Judge Miss R. L. Campbell, Judge Mrs J. Verman, Judge N. P. Sellar, Judge Nicholas Wikeley - Upper Tribunal, Judge S. D. Ennals, Judges, Judicial Review, Legal, Record of Proceedings, Royal Courts Of Justice, Slowly rotting, The Upper Tribunal Office (Administrative Appeals Chamber), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,