[2024] UKUT 00300 (LC)

Mr Deane applied to the FTT on 12 January 2024 asking it to reinstate his appeal and giving some additional information about communications between Mr Kasi, his office manager, and himself. The FTT notified him that, having already refused one application for reinstatement it was not willing to entertain a further application for the same relief. Instead it would treat the latest application as a request for permission to appeal against the decision of 18 December 2023, which it refused. Mr Deane then sought the permission of this Tribunal.

In his grounds of appeal Mr Deane, who was not professionally represented, reiterated his case that he did do not own or manage No. 86A, nor had he ever done. The Council had imposed a financial penalty for the same offence on the true owner of the property. He claimed also to have followed the FTT’s directions when he became aware of them and made further reference to IT issues and emails going astray which he had not known until after investigations by his IT department conducted after the 18th December hearing.

Mr Deane did not articulate any particular error in the FTT’s approach or reasoning and appeared to rely simply on the underlying merits of his case. The FTT had not paid any attention to the strength or weakness of his grounds of appeal against the financial penalty and, quoting Haziri, proceeded on the basis that the merits were not relevant to the determination of Mr Deane’s application to reinstate his appeal. It was to examine the correctness of the FTT’s approach that permission to appeal was granted by this Tribunal.

In its response to the appeal the Council reiterated the facts and emphasised the care taken by the FTT in applying the Denton guidance. It submitted that Mr Deane had identified no error of law in the FTT’s approach and that the appeal should be dismissed.