This Appeal was first heard on 1st May 2015 by Judge G. I. Marsh. Upper Tribunal judge Nicholas Wikeley subsequently “Set Aside” that FTT (First Tier Tribunal) Decision, read:
CB v HM Revenue and Customs and AE (CHB):  UKUT 506 (AAC)
It was then heard at a fresh First Tier Tribunal on 24th April 2017 by Judge Mrs J. Verman. I lost again. So today, I sent this to HMCTS:
I formally request that the Decision of 24th April 2017 be “Set Aside”.
If you decide not to “Set Aside” the Decision, I hereby request permission to Appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
I am extremely disappointed with the FTT Decision, especially as the Upper Tribunal has already bounced it back once already.
Judge Verman and Respondent Mrs Checkly (HMRC) verbalised that there is a difference between living with someone, & staying with someone.
Yet even now, after yet another Tribunal Hearing, the Tribunal wrongly concluded that my daughter was living with her father [2nd Respondent] for the period 1st August 2013 to some point during the second week of April 2014.
In the signed and dated response from [my Ex], to HMRC, dated 24th December 2013, [my Ex] wrote “N/A” (not applicable), and drew a line through the segment that asked: “Do they live with you some of the time?”
[My Ex] didn’t say that our daughter lived/stayed at her then-boyfriend’s house for 3 nights per week on average, as [my Ex & his girlfriend] have subsequently claimed at Tribunal.
I accept that as [our daughter] has provided contradictory evidence, that today’s Judge cannot rely on [our daughter’s] evidence.
As I have previously confirmed, I have never actually met [our daughter’s then-boyfriend’s mother]. [My Ex] has also confirmed that I’d never met [her then-boyfriend’s mother], (he was telling the truth for once).
The first time I actually ever spoke to [her then-boyfriend’s mother] on the phone was when she rang me on 22nd November 2016, after I’d written to her, saying I’d reluctantly have to apply for a witness summons if she didn’t respond. [Her then-boyfriend’s mother] then sent a letter to HMCTS, and I received a copy. [Her then-boyfriend’s mother] is a solicitor, she would have no reason to lie or offer false evidence, as I’ve never met her or known her personally, [I listed her on-line profiles, for the benefit of the Judge].
It is [her then-boyfriend’s mother] – admired, respected, long serving solicitor, who I’ve never met – that wrote directly to HMCTS on 25th November 2016 (stamped as received by HMCTS on 30th November 2016), confirming in her letter that [my daughter] had “moved into” [her then-boyfriend’s & mother’s] home in July 2013.
[Her then-boyfriend’s mother] also confirms that as far as she was aware, my daughter received no financial support from her father.
[Her then-boyfriend’s mother] also confirms that “[my daughter] continued to live with [her & her son] until around April 2014, when she went back to live with her father”.
[My Ex & his girlfriend] offered no evidence of the fictitious sums of money they fraudulently insisted they gave [our daughter].
They gave verbal evidence separately, clearly having already concocted plausible amounts of cash they supposedly freely handed to [our daughter] regularly.
[My Ex & his girlfriend] have lied and presented false evidence throughout.
Judge Verman attached more weight to [My Ex & his girlfriend’s] false, unsupported, evidence, than she did to the neutral and honest evidence of a leading solicitor, who had welcomed [my daughter] into their home from some point in July 2013 up to some point during the second week of April 2014.
The only “evidence” that [my Ex & his girlfriend] have offered, apart from their own contemptible testimonies and written lies, are letters/statements sent to [their address]. I’ve already counteracted this “evidence”.
Unlike [my Ex], I was able to show some of what I’ve given to, or spent on [daughter], though not all.
FACT is, [our daughter] neither lived with [my Ex], nor was in any way supported by [my Ex & his girlfriend] throughout this period.
FACT is, that [our daughter] lived with [her then-boyfriend & his mother], and that I contributed financially (only some of which is provable).
Clearly the Decision of 24th April 2017 is a breach of the rules of natural justice, and it does not give proper findings of fact.
Furthermore, Judge Verman, and some of the previous Judges involved with this case, have repeatedly declined to order many of the Directions I’ve requested.
throughout this period.
In point 25 of Judge Verman‘s FINDINGS & REASONS, she justifies the refusals to grant the Directions I’ve requested, citing Upper Tribunal Judge Nicholas Wikeley‘s comments.
However, there clearly is scope within the Tribunal system to request Directions, especially if the results would be pertinent (reasonable & proportionate) to the case. HMRC has never justified its utter incompetence, its failure to directly contact [my daughter’s then-boyfriend’s mother], at any point over the last few years.
Mrs Checkly (HMRC’s representative) told Judge Verman that HMRC would have ignored [my daughter’s] request to update her address/details when [my daughter] had phoned HMRC on 21st November 2013, as [my daughter] was not the claimant (ChB claimant) for this period!
[My daughter] actually rang HMRC on 21st November 2013 on 0845 915 7006, to update her address/details, as she’d been living at [her then-boyfriend’s & mother’s] house since July 2013. [My daughter] rang HMRC’s National Insurance/Registrations (I believe), NOT Child Benefit! At 2:3?pm on 21st November 2013, [my daughter] rang me to tell me she’d just phoned HMRC on 0845 915 7006, and she’d updated her address to [her boyfriend/mother’s].
Either way, HMRC should have updated [my daughter’s] address to [her boyfriend/mother’s] address. It was only at this Tribunal on 24th April 2017 that HMRC’s representative (Mrs Checkly) announced that HMRC would have ignored [my daughter’s] new evidence/updated address! Truly shocking!
Not only are HMRC disinclined to establish concrete facts, but HMRC wilfully ignore and disregard evidence when they are contacted directly!
At the heart of this Appeal is where my daughter lived July 2013 to mid-April 2014. Judge Verman has failed to weigh up the evidence adequately. [My Ex & his girlfriend] have consistently lied, and HMRC has never contacted [my daughter’s then-boyfriend’s mother] directly. [My daughter’s then-boyfriend’s mother’s] recent letter (Nov 2016) confirmed [my daughter] lived at [boyfriend’s/mother’s address] for the period.
Once HMCTS has established the FACT that [my daughter] lived at [her then-boyfriend/mother’s] address, then [my Ex & his girlfriend’s] other frivolous lies would have been treated with the disdain/lack of merit they deserve.