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 Verman] finds 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:
- “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.”
- “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.
- “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 Verman] set 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………)