I welcome that but it still took another eight months before, on 8 August 1997, Mr X received the the Adjudicator’s report. That extreme delay, amounting to maladministration, I criticise. I welcome the apologies by the Chairman, the expression of regret by the then Adjudicator and the making of a consolatory payment of £300 in that regard. The present Adjudicator has said she wishes to be associated with those apologies. She said the service from her Office was well below the standard which Mr X was entitled to expect.
The legal steps that are always demanded for making the right end is faced by people to make the process easy and simple in the Dilapidation Report. This is said that when you follow the authorized persons guidance then in that case you will make the right end in the pest inspection procedure. She said that at the time Mr X’s complaint was with her Office there appeared to have been a lack of a system to identify the type of delay that had occurred. She had checked that such a system was now in place she hoped very much that there would be no repetition of the difficulty which had arisen.
I see all that as a suitable outcome to that aspect of Mr X’s complaint. Mr X also complained that the then Adjudicator failed properly to consider his complaint against the Revenue. That the then Adjudicator came to a recommendation with which Mr X disagreed. The then Adjudicator and her staff took discretionary decisions about how they should consider Mr X’s complaint and the courses of action and lines of enquiry they should pursue.
This is possible because the occupied development and steps are done in the systematic way when the building inspectors executed the BPI method. They are the experts because they have full experience and right knowledge for making the process and steps in the very right manner. Those discretionary decisions they were entitled to take and, the delay apart I do not see evidence of maladministration in their taking. That the outcome of my investigation has led to a different end result does not alter that.
A real Republican would never want to endorse taxes, but of course I did, said Williams, who now works part-time at a grocery store. Williams, 30, said his platform includes eliminating tax cuts, pushing for an Building Inspector international bill of rights and increasing funds for Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. And, like his 2002 platform, he also hopes to expand highway construction in the Muscle Shoals and West Huntsville areas. But it’ll be a tough race for Williams, who has less than $5,000 to campaign with while Cramer’s fund exceeds $1 million.
Cramer also has seven terms in which he built alliances and sought to stimulate economic growth throughout his North Alabama district. An important issue in this election will be who is the most qualified candidate to represent North Alabama in Congress, Cramer said. feel that I’ve bonded with the people of the 5th District and have represented them to the best of my ability for the past 14 years. I have gained seniority in Congress while positioning myself on the powerful Appropriations and Intelligence committees, which has enabled me to better serve the 5th District. Bachelor’s degree from University of Alabama in 1969; law degree from the University of Alabama in 1972.
Elected to Congress in 1990 and re-elected in 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002. Bachelor’s in business management from Athens State College in 1998; master’s in public affairs and political science from University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001. Ran in the Dist. 5 primary as a Republican in 2002; worked in Ross Perot campaign in 1992. Bachelor’s degree in computer science from University of Alabama-Huntsville in 2003.
Second campaign for political office; lost previous election to Cramer by nearly 27 percent. Served as state communications coordinator for presidential candidate Alan Keyes in 2000. Nuclear reactor operator and trainer for the U. S. Navy, 1960-68; worked in nuclear plants in six states until 1994; founder and executive director of the Shoals Save a Life ministry since 1994.
The person who has full knowledge in the inspecting area of house has the full experience to make the process easy. This is said that the Recommended building and pest inspection company is maintained with the right process and on the right track which is beneficial for all people. On 16 October a further court hearing was due to take place but it was adjourned to enable Mr X to respond to regional offices comments of 13 October 1997. There followed further correspondence between the Revenue and accountants Y on Mr X’s affidavit to the court and further adjournments of the court hearing were sought and granted.
The Official Receiver’s office said there was nothing to show that those has been subsequently presented, and there was no reference in the list to any wage records. On 28 January regional office wrote to accountants Y to say that they intended to proceed with the hearing and to ask that the application to set aside judgment should be dismissed. On 3 February regional office sent the collection office a report of the hearing and said that the case would need to be referred to the Revenue’s Enforcement Office to consider bankruptcy proceedings against Mr X.
This is also said tat if there is no guidance then there are full chances for people to face errors in the house inspecting procedure. It is very important for all people’s to follow the right process in the right direction for avoiding errors and mistakes from the inspection process and get the full profit. On 18 February the collection office wrote to Mr X saying that in the absence of payment bankruptcy proceedings should be taken against him.
On 27 February Mr X’s solicitors wrote to the collection office saying that Mr X was considering applying for legal aid in order to pursue an application for judicial review. On 17 March the Enforcement Office (to whom the case had been referred) replied to the solicitors saying that the Revenue intended to continue legal action but would allow 28 days for Mr X’s solicitors to make preliminary enquiries.
However, I am pleased that they have accepted my recommendation that an edited version of the discussion paper can now be released, and that they have sent a copy to Mr J. I also welcome the steps MCA are taking to review their internal procedures for handling requests under the Code. As part of the appeal, a VI engineer was asked to undertake an assessment of the technical evidence that has contributed to the decision. The engineer’s report concluded that the technical evidence did not justify withdrawal and the appeal was subsequently allowed.
The Inspection Proccess appeals are handled by the MOT Appeals Branch, a small team within the Chief Executive’s Office. who are independent of the operational part of the organisation which makes the original decision to withdraw an authorisation. In a report dated 22 March 1999, the engineer concluded that the technical evidence available on file did not support the issue of the two final warnings. nor was it sufficiently robust with regard to the incognito check of 30 September 1998 to justify withdrawal.
On 22 April 1999 Mr C wrote to VI and asked for a copy of the internal report prepared by the engineer. He cited the Code. Mr C wrote again to VI on 5 May, repeating his request for a copy of the engineer’s report. Mr C’s request for a copy of the engineer’s report was therefore refused under Exemption 2 of the Code, which was cited. The Chief Executive went on to say that any information from the engineer’s report which was relevant to the determination of the appeal was contained in the decision letter of 20 April.
Mr C was informed that, if he was unhappy with VI’s decision not to release the information, he could make a complaint to the Ombudsman in due course Mr C sought the Ombudsman’s intervention. Following receipt of Mr C’s complain, I wrote to the Permanent Secretary of DETR to ask for his comments. When giving me his comments on behalf of the Permanent Secretary, the Chief Executive of VI said that the case has been referred to DETR.
The loan would be taken out by the company but it would be the charity as trustees for the foundation who would mortgage the land. proposed on behalf of the charity that the foundation should make over to the company the assets occupied by the school as the company was in the difficult position of having responsibility for maintaining buildings it did not own. A member of the Commission’s staff, whom I refer to as officer A, sent solicitors X a holding reply on 27 October.
On 9 November he said that the Building inspection Commission were prepared to vary the terms of the 1993 order but would not be prepared to establish such a scheme as had been proposed as the school buildings were permanent endowment of the foundation. Solicitors X wrote to the Commission on 10 November about the variation of the 1993 order sought and separately about the proposed transfer of assets from the foundation to the company.
They said that the charity were joining in the proposed loan arrangement to charge the foundation’s assets so that the charity would secure a loan which the company would repay. they also said that the Commission has mistakenly read references to the company in the papers as though they were to the foundation. In a separate letter, solicitors X told the Commission that transferring the control and ownership of the assets occupied by the school from the foundation to the company would improve the management of the school.
They added that the charity wanted to rationalise the very complicated structure of the foundation but were not seeking to depart from the trusts. Solicitors X reminded the Commission on 30 November of the need for a response on the transfer of assets point. 1994 On 15 January solicitors X reminded the Commission of the urgency of a response to their proposals. Officer A sent a holding letter on 28 January in which he explained the reason for the delay and apologise. He replied substantively on 4 February saying that, while the Commission did not object in principle to restructuring the foundation, the school property was permanent endowment.
He added that to try to settle the matter without further costs being incurred he had that day sent a ‘without prejudice save as to costs’ offer to solicitors A and the court; if that offer was not accepted he was prepared to go to trial. On 16 April the court ordered that Mr V had leave to serve a further statement of a lay witness (the former co-director of the renovation company), and that Termite Inspection experts. were to meet with a view to narrowing the issues and prepare a joint report stating what items remained in dispute and why.
On 10 May the area office wrote to the opponent. They asked him by 25 May to provide the names of all the directors of the renovation company; to confirm if he had received £56,000 for a job which he had been instructed to do in October 1997. providing documentary evidence to support his answer and to provide full details of all income received from 1 January 1997 to date. They sent that letter to the opponent’s previous address.
He said that he was concerned about the delay in receiving a decision regarding the opponent’s eligibility for legal aid, particularly as solicitors A had since applied for a trial date to be set.s He added that experts from both sides had met as requested by the court and agreed that at best the opponent’s claim was worth £9,147. He reminded the area office that he had made an offer of more than £8,000 to settle the matter.
On 27 June the area office replied that the investigation into the opponent’s means was continuing and they hoped to complete it within the next four weeks. They would send a separate reply concerning the point Mr V had raised about the merits of the opponent’s case shortly. That day they wrote to the opponent at his previous address asking him to show cause why his legal aid should not be withdrawn for failure to co-operate with their investigation.
Turning to the second strand of Mr F’s request, namely access to the information contained in the replies where confidentiality was not requested, I think it would be helpful at this juncture to refer again to the relevant section of the consultation document. DoH have argued that respondents who did not request confidentiality were giving their permission for DoH to quote from their replies only in the context of a future DoH publication, not for their responses to be made available on any broader basis.
While I can see merit in this argument, is it sufficient of itself to justify withholding the information. In my view, by choosing not to request confidentiality, respondents were indicated a willingness for any part of their reply to be included in any analysis DoH might prepare for publication. on a named basis, Radon Testing inspection service and for any person, including Mr F, to read part or all of such a response in such a publication.
Given this fact, is it reasonable for DoH to assume that these respondents would be willing for Mrf, or anyone else for that matter, to be given sight of their responses. I cannot see that it is. By choosing not to request confidentiality respondents have indicated their willingness in principle to allow anyone to read any part of their replies.
From the respondents’ perspective, I cannot see any essential difference between being content for Mr F to have a sight of all or part of their response via a DoH publication and being content for him to have sight of it as originally submitted.
On balance I do not, therefore, find that Exemption 14 applies in this case. In his response to the statement of complaint the Chief Executive said that if the Ombudsman recommended that the information requested by Mr F should be disclosed. he would welcome the Ombudsman’s views on whether it would be necessary for DoH to write to those respondents who had not requested confidentiality to ask if they consented to the disclosure.