Parking and Bus lane Adjudicators for Scotland: consultation

Part 4: Draft Regulations setting out the rules of procedure for the First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber for Parking and Bus Lane Appeals

Background

20. Schedule 9, paragraph 2(2) and section 81 of the 2014 Act provides the power for the Scottish Ministers to make regulations for the procedural rules of a listed tribunal that are in force immediately before the transfer to have effect for the purposes of the First-tier Tribunal.

Draft Regulations

21. The Parking and Bus Lane Adjudicators already have comprehensive procedural rules in place, but the transfer of the adjudicators to the First-tier Tribunal provides an opportunity to enhance the current rules of procedure to the benefit of all parties and to maximise consistency of procedural rules across the Scottish Tribunals. We have therefore, proposed some additions to the current rules, which includes:

• an overriding objective for the Tribunal,
• provision to convene a hearing over the telephone or video link if the First-tier Tribunal are satisfied that this does not prejudice the administration of justice
• case management powers to enhance efficiency in administration of the tribunal;
• powers to strike out a case in specific circumstances;
• provision to deal with accidental slips or omissions.

Questions on the First-Tier General Regulatory Chamber Rules of Procedure

Q1: Do you have any specific comments on the draft regulations on the First-tier Tribunal General Regulatory Chamber Parking and Bus Lane Adjudicators Rules of Procedure?

Q2. In Rule 11(3) “disposing of an appeal without a hearing” we have included provision that unless both parties consent to the disposal taking place on an earlier date, the First-tier Tribunal must not decide an appeal without a hearing until after 28 days. As telephone hearings and a new IT system may considerably speed up the process. Do you believe:

• This provision be deleted;
• The time period should be shortened;
• or should we retain this provision in full.

Q3. Do you have any comments to make about the new powers to strike out a case in specific circumstances?

Q4. Currently the adjudicators decide on whether there should be a review of a case and if so, carry out that review. Do you think this process should continue at this level or should this power now fall within the remit of the new Chamber President?

Q5. Do you have any further comments?