@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
