Very interesting High Court case regarding PATAS

[EDW2000]

Adjudicators have been pumping out rubbish for years, at last someone had the courage to take the adequacy of reasons to JR, and they fookin won.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/713.html

[Ewan Hoosami]

That was a properly decent read from the non-fiction section. I especially liked,

15……………………….In that respect, the adjudicator decision maker manifestly failed to consider first of all properly, or at all, whether or not the contravention had occurred. 

17. The second limb of the complaint is that the decision maker failed to consider whether or not there were compelling reasons why the Notice should be cancelled. The decision maker makes no reference at all to compelling reasons and clearly, therefore, the adjudicator has failed to consider a matter which she should have considered. She sets out that she has no jurisdiction to take into account mitigating circumstances. Nonetheless, she goes on to consider what she feels are mitigating circumstances. Those reasons, as I have said are, again, inherently inconsistent and, more properly, go to the heart of the matter.

19………………...there was a clear failure to provide adequate reasons; the reasons given were so inadequate as to make the decision unreasonable; and the decision was not, as I find, properly made.

22. In the circumstances, I quash the decision as requested, and given my view as to the overwhelming inadequacy of the reasons here and the error of law…………………. 


The more you look at it as a whole, PATAS decisions do seem to be a lottery rather than considered on points of law. I say disband the bastards and give the whole thing to TPT.

[DastardlyDick]

I suppose the main question would be are TPT willing (or able) to take on the extra work?
I seem to remember that they (among others) were invited to tender for PoPLA, but they didn't due to the extra work it would entail.
Another possible scenario would be that if PaTAS were to be disbanded, and the adjuducators presumably made redundant, the replacement organization would need to recruit. You could end up with the same (allegedly) inconsistent adjudicators just picking up where they left off.

[EDW2000]

 "overwhelming inadequacy"


very rare to see judge use language like that.

[The Bald Eagle]

I conclude that the decision maker did not understand the law as it applied to the decision that she was making.

 

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Patas does it?

[The Bald Eagle]

I suppose the main question would be are TPT willing (or able) to take on the extra work?
I seem to remember that they (among others) were invited to tender for PoPLA, but they didn't due to the extra work it would entail.

You really should check your facts before making such sweeping statements Dick.

As you will see from the attached letter, the TPT were perfectly happy to take on the extra work (see 6.4 quoted below) but they would not agree to the way that the BPA Ltd wanted to run Popla as was set out in the invitation to tender (ITT).

The TPT even provided an alternative way to set up Popla so that it could establish its independence, all of which was ignored by a BPA Ltd that obviously wanted to keep its element of control that the TPT were not willing to sign up to.

In fact, when you read the whole letter it is a prophecy of what has actually happened due to the BPA Ltd failing to heed the TPT's advice.

-------------------------------------------------------

6.4 Indeed, should a revised approach to commissioning the service be adopted, TPT would still like the opportunity to offer this service, which, notwithstanding that we are not prepared to meet the demands of the current ITT, we nonetheless believe that we can deliver effectively, efficiently and at outstanding value and the following added value:

• Demonstrable independence, well established in the public eye through many years practice
• Experience in providing an appeals service across England and Wales
• Providing access to adjudication for a diverse jurisdiction including large and small local authorities.
• Web based appeals process for both parties facilitated by the development of a new case management portal
• Well established telephone hearing service
• Adjudicators with diverse legal expertise and experience
• Adjudicator Training and Outreach which has been commended by the Judicial Studies Board
• Experience of providing information to the public via helpline, leaflets and web site.
• Experience of providing induction training to councils requiring access to adjudication

[DastardlyDick]

I conclude that the decision maker did not understand the law as it applied to the decision that she was making.

 

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Patas does it?

Especially when you consider the qualifications they're supposed to have to be an adjudicator in the first place.