United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> West v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT V20538 (17 January 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2008/V20538.html
Cite as: [2008] UKVAT V20538

---

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Stephen Henry Cyril West v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT V20538 (17 January 2008)

 


20538

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE Reference No: LON/2007/1336

Copy sent to:

Appellant/Applicant

Respondents

STEPHEN HENRY CYRIL WEST Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: CHARLES HELLIER (Chairman)

SHEILA EDMONDSON FCA

Sitting in public in London on 16 January 2008

DIRECTION

UPON HEARING Mr West in person and Jemma Hamlin instructed by the solicitor to HMRC for the Respondents

1. Mr West told us that he had two complaints. Both related to the conduct of the Respondents over the last two or three years in particular:-

(i) despite his earlier requests to be put on the flat rate scheme, the Respondents had not until March 2007 permitted him to operate under the scheme. Had they done so he says that he would not have had many of the problems with his VAT compliance which in fact had arisen;

(ii) when he had got into financial difficulties he had sought the agreement of the Respondents to payment by instalments. The Respondents had rejected his suggestions but had made no alternative proposals. Instead they had proceeded to commence insolvency proceedings

2. The tribunal heard no evidence on those issues and makes no findings of fact in relation to them
2
3. It appears to us that none of the complaints made by Mr West fall within any of the headings in section 83 VAT Act 1994. It is only in respect of such headings that this tribunal has any jurisdiction to hear an appeal. Accordingly the appeal must be struck out
4. The tribunal indicated that the Revenue Adjudicator might have authority to hear and consider the complaints made by Mr West. Those complaints relate it appeared to the tribunal to administrative actions of the Respondents
5. On 13 August 2007 a bankruptcy order was made against the Appellant. The tribunal office's correspondence with the office of the Official Solicitor suggests that the Official Solicitor would consent to his substitution in place of Mr West as Appellant in the appeal if no costs would be awarded against him. No application for costs in this hearing was made by the Respondents who understood the Official Solicitor by its correspondence to have consented to Mr West pursuing his case
6. A copy of this direction should be sent to the Official Solicitor, to Mr West and the Respondents

We Accordingly DIRECT that this appeal be struck out

CHARLES HELLIER Chairman Release Date: 17 January 2008