[2025] UKUT 86 (AAC)

The appellant complains that DBS wrongly and unfairly refused to grant her requests for an extension of time: (i) in the telephone call on 30 July 2021; (ii) as requested in her letter of 3 August 2021; and, (iii) as requested in her letter of 10 September 2021. Her grounds of appeal argue that DBS thus made its decision without considering the full facts of her case and denied itself the opportunity of properly scrutinising not only the material that was in its possession but also the evidence that she would have been able to place before it. She also complains that her ‘legitimate expectations’ were breached because the Minded to Bar letter stated, “If you want more time to send representations, please talk to us as soon as possible”, yet when she did speak to DBS, they did not extend time. The Minded to Bar letter also stated, “In the interests of fairness and equality, we can make arrangements to hear oral representations. If you are unable to provide written representations, please contact us to discuss alternative options”. She complains she was not offered this option either.

In the grant of permission to appeal (set out in full above), Judge Stout observed that, in the light of the matters raised by the appellant, it was arguable that DBS had misunderstood its powers in relation to extensions of time for making representations and/or that it had failed to consider exercising its discretion and/or exercised its discretion irrationally. Judge Stout also raised the concern that what happened in this case was indicative of a general practice by DBS.

DBS in response denies that there is any general practice in relation to dealing with applications for extensions of time, but has not put in any evidence in response to the appeal. DBS maintains that it properly exercised its discretion in this case to refuse the appellant an extension of time, or the opportunity to make late representations, on the basis that she had had an opportunity to make representations during the prescribed period and had failed to do so. In its skeleton argument for this hearing, DBS argued that it did not have power to extend the prescribed period for making representations, but during the course of oral argument DBS recanted from this position, accepting that it did have discretion under regulation 2(6) of the 2008 Regulations. DBS further says that, although it did not give the appellant permission to make late representations, it did take into account in its final decision on 24 August 2021 the representations that the appellant made in her letter of 3 August 2021.