SoR requested and eventually received after some 4 months of chasing. Record of proceedings was illegible and SoR seemed well off target in relation to how the appeal had actually gone. Typed transcript requested and took few weeks to arrive. Telephoned TAS and specifically asked if extra time could be allowed due to delay. This went to District Chair and was agreed. However, leave to appeal requested and has been refused as out of time stating no record of telephone request on their system. I will continue with appeal to Commissioners but I'm not a happy bunny. Any thoughts anyone ???

Do your grounds of appeal relate to what was in the record once you had received a legible copy?

Yes

Sorry for brief answer previously.
The grounds for appeal are that
i) The Tribunal had insufficient evidence to support its decision and did not give adequate reasons for its decision in its statement of reasons see R 2/01(IB)T and R (M) 1/96. When looking at the full written reasons alongside the record of proceedings, the reasoning behind the decision cannot be followed.
ii) The Tribunal decided the facts in such a way that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have come to the determination under appeal.

There is an HB/CTB CD, <CH/2553/2005>, in which is was found that the 3 mth time limit to appeal to Cmmrs was absolute. If memory serves me correctly (and, er, it may not....), this was a case where TTS said they never received a request for the SOR..... But, there may be something in your case that distinguishes it from the CD cited.

CD @: www.osscsc.gov.uk/aspx/view.aspx?id=1982

Regards

Of course that time limit only starts to run once the SOR is sent, the four month delay mentioned was in getting hte SOR in teh first place. The late issue arrises whilst the appellant was waiting for a transcript of the record of proceedings...which the law appears silent on.

The absolute time limit for requesting leave to apeal is 13 months, not three months which is the absolute time limit for requesting a SOR.

If you are within the 13 months and you have acted as quickly as possible after receiving the Rec of Proc, then I think you might have a reasonable shot at getting a late appeal on the basis that it is in the interests of justice particulalry if you can show your appeal is dependant upon the record of proc (Your case would be strengthened if you can give evidence of te phone call to TTS). However from what you say I am not convinced by this. You say that the tribunal's reasoning could not be followed in the rec of Proc. But the tribunals reasoning does not have to be shown in the record. The record is just a record of the evidnce that was heard, not of how the decision was made.

If the evidence recorded in the record is the same as the evidnce referred to in the statement then presumably your grounds of appeal could have been identyfied earlier so you might be on an uphill struggle. If however the rec of proc shows the tribunal failed to take into account key evidence and this could not have been identfyied without legible a rec of proc then you are back in the ring

Worth having a look at the line of cases relating to the Statement of Reasons in the notes on Reg 55 of the Decisions and Appeals Regs in Rowland and White (p 642) - suggesting that an illegible ROP can in some cases amount to an error of law in its own right. Which is why I always use an italic nib for mine as my writing in ballpoint is a horrible scrawl...

Brigid