[2023] UKUT 190 (LC)

The FTT struck out the application pursuant to Rules 9(2)(a) and 9(3)(e) of the FTT’s rules. The first of those provisions allows the FTT to strike out proceedings if the tribunal has no jurisdiction. The second applies where the FTT considers that the proceedings have no reasonable prospect of success.

In a short decision the Judge referred to the facts and to the account given by the Council of how the final notices were served, before continuing:

“In response, the applicant’s representative stated that the notices posted in 2020 were not received. No witness statement was provided by the applicant with an explanation to back up that claim or dealing with the delays set out in paragraph 7 above [a reference to the passage of time between the Council’s request for a signed authorisation for it to discuss the matter with Dr van Dellen and the provision of that document on 21 July 2022].”

Having referred to the rules 9(2)(a) and (d), the Judge went on:

“11.

The tribunal is satisfied that the notices were sent to the applicant at the property on 21 May 2020. The challenge is that the notices were not received but no witness statement was provided by the applicant to explain why (for example, evidence that he had left the property at an earlier date) and no explanation was given for the other delays in the case despite the order to do so.

12.

In the circumstances the applicant has failed to provide good reason as to why the tribunal should extend time in this case and the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Alternatively, the extreme delay in making the application is an abuse of process and it is appropriate to strike the matter out for that delay.

13.

I have taken into account the large amount of the penalties, but again no evidence was provided by the applicant as to his financial circumstances and it was not clear whether the penalties will ever be recovered by the respondent.”