Perhaps along the lines of.....
I understand the authority's position regarding the contravention and the strict liability position which they have taken regarding compliance, as is their prerogative. However, this invites me to adopt a similar approach to their compliance with the Appeals Regulations, specifically regulation 6 and the duty placed upon an authority when rejecting representations.
I submit that in this case there are clear and material defects in the NOR.
The regulations to which the authority refer specify matters which are to be included in a NOR. There is no suggestion that parliament intended that any of these were of more importance than others and therefore it should be presumed that each carries equal weight and that as regards consideration of procedural impropriety on the authority's part I submit that equal weight should be applied by the adjudicator to each provision. Whereas in the case of individual words where it might be possible to consider synonyms and the like and apply the principle of 'substantial compliance', I submit that no such leeway should be afforded to an authority whose NOR omits complete regulatory provisions or misstates their meaning.
Specifically and quite correctly the NOR refers to the authority's power to serve a Charge Certificate and the means by which an appeal may be registered. Similarly, it refers to the issue of 'costs', albeit that this is incomplete. But I submit that the effect of this mandatory information is rendered useless when, without exception, the NOR misquotes the time period which is the trigger for each of these coming into effect. The NOR states:
Pay the penalty within 28 days of this letter being served..
Appeal..must be done no later than 28 days of this letter being served..
If you do not pay or appeal before the end of the 28 day period ..we may serve a Charge Certificate..at this stage you have no further opportunity to appeal
Whereas the regulations prescribe:
...within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice.
In the event that the authority might attempt to finesse this flaw by stating that their internal processes allow this extra day and that they would not exercise their power any earlier, I submit that the regulations do not allow such variations. The simple fact is that if the owner paid on day 29 or (in the authority's mind) submitted an appeal on day 29, they would in either case have lost their legislative rights and left themselves open to the authority's goodwill.
At the same time that the regulations impose strict requirements upon the authority as regards the NOR, they provide the adjudicator with discretion to accept appeals submitted late. However, the NOR omits any reference to this vitally important provision - particularly in the context of current well-documented postal problems- and overtly states that 'if you do not ..appeal before the end of the 28-day period..you have no further opportunity to appeal.' which statement I suggest is contrary to law.
I respectfully submit that the above constitute a procedural impropriety on the authority's part and that my appeal should be allowed on these grounds.
Just some thoughts.
