Lee David Cavill

V

Secretary of State 

[2006] 0729.PVA / 0730.PC

-Before-

Simon Oliver
(Nominated Chairman)

DECISION ON AN
APPLICATION FOR COSTS

1.	On 21st July 2006, Mr. Reddish, nominated Chairman, ordered that the Appellant’s name be removed from the Protection of Children Act list because the Secretary of State decided not to oppose his appeal when he lodged it with this Tribunal. Paragraph 6 of the order gave directions if the Appellant sought an order for costs.

2.	On 27th July 2006 the Appellant’s solicitors wrote to the Tribunal setting out the reasons for the application for costs and attaching their invoice (and narrative) for £458.25 being a sum of £390 plus VAT of £68.25.

3.	In accordance with Regulation 24(2), before making a costs order against a party, the Tribunal must (b) invite representations from the paying party and consider any representations he makes, consider whether he is able to comply with such an order and consider any relevant written information which he has provided.

4.	Accordingly, the letter from the Appellant’s solicitors dated 27th July 2006, together with the invoice and narrative, was sent to the Respondent. The Respondent replied by letter dated 31st July 2006.

5.	In the letter seeking costs the Appellant’s solicitors state that the Secretary of State has acted unreasonably. They argue that the Appellant had no knowledge at all of what had transpired between his interview with social service officers in 1996 and his discovery, in May 2006 (when he received the Enhanced Disclosure from the CRB), that on 5th October 2000 he had been placed on the Protection of Children Act list as being unsuitable to work with children.

6.	The Appellant argues that with the apparent gap of some six years between the interview by Social Services and their notification to the Department for Education and Skills, subsequent notification to him was unreasonable. He believes that greater efforts should have been made to keep him informed so that he could have appealed at an earlier stage.

7.	In response to the application for costs the Respondent states that it would be inappropriate to make an order for costs as the Secretary of State has not acted unreasonably in conducting the proceedings. In the letter the Secretary of State notes that the Appellant was referred to the Consultancy Service Index (CSI) in July 1996 by Hampshire County Council and that notification of his name being placed on that Index was sent to him (by the Department of Health) at his then known address. When the Secretary of State decided to transfer the Appellant’s name to the Protection of Children Act (PoCA) list in 2000, the Department for Eduction and Skills wrote to him at the same address as the Department of Health had in 1996. The letter was returned marked ‘not called for’ as apparently the Appellant had moved address and that was the only address that the department had for him.

8.	It would appear from the history set out in the preceding paragraph that Mr. Cavill had been notified of his inclusion on the CSI in 1996 and that the 2000 notification was not the first referral to the Department by social services but simply a process as a result of the creation of a different list.

9.	Once a positive CRB check was identified against Mr. Cavill in May 2006, a letter was sent to him at the address he then gave, advising him of his PoCA listing and rights of appeal. Mr Cavill appealed to the Tribunal on 30th June 2006 and the Secretary of State was informed on 3rd July. In response to the appeal, the Secretary of State reviewed the case and informed the Tribunal that it did not intend to oppose the appeal. The Secretary of State argues that he acted reasonably in deciding not to oppose the appeal at the earliest possible opportunity.

10.	Regulation 24(1) of the Tribunal regulations states that  “if in the opinion of the Tribunal a party has acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings it may make an order …” (my emphasis). It is clear, therefore, that I need to be satisfied that the Secretary of State acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting these proceedings NOT whether there was any unreasonable behaviour between 1996 and 2006.

11.	Given that the Secretary of State informed the Tribunal at the first opportunity that the Appeal would not be opposed, I conclude that the Secretary of State has NOT been unreasonable in bringing or conducting the proceedings.

12.	In those circumstances, I am not persuaded that there should be an order for costs in this matter.

13.	I am unable (and unwilling) to comment upon what happened in 1996 and 2000 as I do not have all the information available to me and, in any event, given the wording of the Regulations, it cannot be relevant to this decision.

14.	In light of my conclusion, I ORDER that there be no order as to costs in relation to this appeal.

ORDER ACCORDINGLY

Simon Oliver
Nominated Chairman
15th August 2006