23 June 2016

How compliant is fully compliant?

Mr Mustard loves some of the nonsense which gets written in letters rejecting perfectly valid claims. Here is an example:

There are two possible problems with this sentence.

The first is that in the year 2016 Mr Mustard has completed his work on 82 Barnet Council PCN and has lost twice at the tribunal having been there 44 times. The other 38 PCN were cancelled by Barnet Council based upon what Mr Mustard himself said in his challenges so 38/82 = 46% of the time the council agree with him, 42/82 = 51% of the time an independent adjudicator, a lawyer, agrees with him and 2% of the time Mr Mustard is wrong (he is much more wrong when he is in Ealing, about 95% of the time but that is about a moving traffic violation case where the battle has been lost but the war continues) so maybe, just maybe, he was correct in this case. (1% is lost in rounding).

The second reason is that the argument employed is one that has been found in Mr Mustard's favour three times already at the tribunal and although tribunal decisions are not binding, they are persuasive, so the same outcome is likely.

The case will be at the tribunal by the end of July. We'll see how the alleged careful consideration of the representations pans out.

Councils really should not write rejection letters which are not even-handed as they have a general duty at law to be fair.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

No comments:

Post a Comment

I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.