We finally seem to be getting some common sense on some ongoing “financial stewardship” cases. That said they sill are not playing fairly in my view – halting certain appeals and sending them back to new adjudicators when “misdirection” is obvious, but continuing with the same “misdirection” arguments, afresh on others. We have witnessed this approach on different files from the same sample, in the appeal we are currently writing at present.
This scheme needed properly argued and considered Points of Principle from day one and yet these are still being blocked. I cannot understand this, as it help both parties.
Why can we not have one big Cost Appeal Committee hearing and deal with all key areas of difference in one fell swoop?
Share
