I have been caught up in another listing issue this time closer to home in Reading.
In this particular case the Respondent had requested a PHR to deal with the merits of what was on the papers a weak claim. This application was refused and then without recourse to the parties the matter was simply listed for two days with standard directions. This was on 16th April 2009.
Those instructing me asked for a postponement and gave dates to avoid. The Claimant did not bother to reply to the application. The Tribunal took the best part of 3 weeks to deal with the application; by which time the trial date was about a week away. The postponement was denied. Those instructing me had to make a further urgent application and the case was eventually vacated and a PHR listed.
As I understand the situation the listing of a matter is important for Tribunals statistics so clearly the earlier the listing the better the statistics. I can accept this but, and it is a big but, this is meant to be a service for the litigants. When a case is listed without recourse to either party’s availability, it should be the Tribunals practice to vacate the dates if asked to do so long as alternative dates are provided. It should be enough for a party to write in and say the dates are not convenient so long as the other party is either in agreement or is silent. This is what a service is about.
More importantly it should not take the Tribunal 3 weeks to tell you that your application for a postponement has been rejected. The idea that a simple application for a postponement should take more than a couple of working days to deal with is inexplicable.
I make a simple heartfelt plea from a Tribunal user: Please remember that at the end of the day the people using the Tribunal are your customers, please treat them as such.
Peter D
In this particular case the Respondent had requested a PHR to deal with the merits of what was on the papers a weak claim. This application was refused and then without recourse to the parties the matter was simply listed for two days with standard directions. This was on 16th April 2009.
Those instructing me asked for a postponement and gave dates to avoid. The Claimant did not bother to reply to the application. The Tribunal took the best part of 3 weeks to deal with the application; by which time the trial date was about a week away. The postponement was denied. Those instructing me had to make a further urgent application and the case was eventually vacated and a PHR listed.
As I understand the situation the listing of a matter is important for Tribunals statistics so clearly the earlier the listing the better the statistics. I can accept this but, and it is a big but, this is meant to be a service for the litigants. When a case is listed without recourse to either party’s availability, it should be the Tribunals practice to vacate the dates if asked to do so long as alternative dates are provided. It should be enough for a party to write in and say the dates are not convenient so long as the other party is either in agreement or is silent. This is what a service is about.
More importantly it should not take the Tribunal 3 weeks to tell you that your application for a postponement has been rejected. The idea that a simple application for a postponement should take more than a couple of working days to deal with is inexplicable.
I make a simple heartfelt plea from a Tribunal user: Please remember that at the end of the day the people using the Tribunal are your customers, please treat them as such.
Peter D
No comments:
Post a Comment