The Upper Tribunal Office

(Administrative Appeals Chamber) Grimsby

5th floor North East Lincolnshire
7 Rolls Building DN32



Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1NL

31 January 2018

Upper Tribunal: GIA/47/2018

Tribunal Case No: EA/2017/0062

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Appeal reconsideration at a hearing

I am writing in connection with my rights to apply for the decision to be reconsidered

at a hearing in the Upper Tribunal (in accordance with rule 22 of the Tribunal
Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008).

I have decided against applying for the decision to be reconsidered. That doesn’t
mean I completely agree with the reasons given for why permission has been
refused, rather I see no advantage in presenting my case in person at a renewal
hearing.

Representations in writing generally result with the best and most carefully
considered expression of the applicant and much less susceptible to failures a litigant
would likely face communicating concepts they have in mind at an oral hearing,
particularly if they are inexperienced.

Having said that, it would not hurt to set out for the record one or two reasons why I
disagree with or question the reasons given for refusing permission.

Vexatious by virtue of continuing a theme of Council Tax matters

The Commissioner determined that all five of the requests arose out of a dispute of
long standing relating to council tax, i.e., the police regarded the matters to be civil
whilst the Appellant considered them to be criminal, therefore, a single Decision
Notice was used in respect of all of the individual complaints. The Commissioner
justified doing so because her reasoning when determining each of them was
identical; however, only one of the requests had any connection with the long
standing dispute, the subject was entirely different for the others. Four of the
requests surrounded the Appellant’s wrongful conviction. The fundamental argument
for why the requests were characterised as vexatious was because they continued
on a theme of Council Tax enforcement.

It is questioned how a decision can be made in respect of five individual complaints

in the above circumstances and not be considered challengeable on a point of law.
The Tribunal decision shows manifestly that in four of the five complaints the
determination has been based on irrelevant factors. Paragraph 12 (consideration)
refers in its entirety to the dispute of long standing concerning Council Tax
enforcement.

The claim of bias has no real basis

It is questioned how in these circumstances it can be considered that a claim of bias

could have no real basis. To assume the Appellant holds this view simply on the
grounds that he is aggrieved by the outcome overlooks the realistic prospect that a
fair minded and informed observer, having considered the substantial evidence,
might be satisfied that Appellant’s and the Commissioner’s submissions were not
considered in equal measure and conclude that the tribunal was biased.

In among the representations was extensive evidence proving undeniably that

Humberside Police routinely dealt with matters improperly. Consequently it was the
force that was solely responsible for the volume of correspondence which it claimed
was imposing an unreasonable burden on the force.

Evaluation of evidence ultimately an issue of fact for the first instance Tribunal

There must be a point at which the finding of fact is so unreasonable as to be

irrational and so on that basis the decision should be considered challengeable on a
point of law.

As stated previously the Tribunal decision (consideration) refers in its entirety to the
dispute concerning Council Tax enforcement which was only relevant to one of the
five requests.

Yours sincerely

.