IA167642013

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the appellant. The appellant had stated in her original appeal form that her address was 2/2, 3 Halmiltonhill Gardens G22 5PR. I consider that it is likely that she meant to write the address as Hamiltonhill Gardens. The notice of hearing was sent to 2/2, 3 Halmilton Gardens G22 5PR. Given that the postcode was correct and given that the address is virtually correct I considered that it would not be appropriate or necessary to re-reserve the notice and that it was appropriate to determine the appeal in the absence of the appellant.

The appellant appealed. In her grounds of appeal she referred to an advertisement which she had submitted and stated that she was submitting an updated advertisement which contained her full name and therefore met the requirements of the Rules. She also stated that she had submitted a bank statement letter and balance statement to show that she had access to funds held in the Bank of Scotland.

The Secretary of State appealed pointing out firstly that the advertisement which had been submitted and which the judge found met the requirements of the Rules had not been submitted before the decision and therefore under the provisions of Section 85A that was not admissible. Moreover, the grounds argued that the judge had been wrong to find that the appellant had access to funds.

I have considered the grounds of appeal. It is correct that the judge relied on the advertisement which was submitted after the date of decision and clearly he was wrong to do that. More importantly perhaps however there is no evidence whatsoever that the appellant had access to the relevant funds. It is unclear why the judge considered that she would meet that requirement of the Rules. I therefore consider that there are material errors of law in the determination of the judge and I set aside his decision.

In re-making the decision, for the reasons which I set out above I find that the appellant has not met the requirements of the Rules. Not only had she not provided the requisite financial evidence but also she had not provided an advertisement which met the requirements of the Rules.