« Reply #75 on: March 29, 2024, 01:07:25 pm »
@Pastmybest.In his decision, ***** did not deal with the important issue of the alleged procedural impropriety surrounding the conflation of date served/date delivered pertaining to the Notice to Owner. The NtO date was 10th October; but, it was not received until the 13th October. As argued verbally, whether prejudice was caused or not, if the appellant had counted from 13th October, she would have received a charge certificate.
I stress that this is not an attempt for a second bite at the cherry. Rather, this application is based upon the original adjudicator’s lack of addressing the issue in his decision.
Corrected skeleton:
In addition, the Notice to Owner conflates the date of service with the date of delivery.
The date of its issue was 6th October so that the legally deemed date of service is the 10th; however, the appellant received it on the 13th October. It is irrelevant whether any prejudice has occurred. Furthermore, the date of receipt begs the question of whether it was sent by first class mail as it should
Logged
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.
"Hippocrates"
ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ
