| |
Appellant: William Finnerty
Subject: Procedural Fairness, Omission of Material
Evidence, and Institutional Disregard
To:
Office of the Social Security Commissioner,
2nd Floor, Royal Courts of Justice,
Chichester Street,
Belfast BT1 3JF.
Tuesday, August 26th 2025.
Dear Social Security Commissioner,
Re: Attached Enclosed Form OSSC1 (NI), Your Reference A1/25-26(PC)
In connection with this appeal I wish to state the points set out below.
=== === ===1. Introduction
I respectfully submit this appeal to the Social Security Commissioner
on the grounds of procedural unfairness, failure to consider material
evidence, and systemic disregard for correspondence and legal concerns.
My case reflects a broader pattern of institutional impunity, where key
documents, registered letters, and legal arguments have been excluded
from consideration, resulting in decisions that lack transparency and
violate principles of natural justice.
2. Failure to Consider Registered Correspondence
Throughout the course of this matter, I submitted multiple registered
letters to the relevant authorities, including formal requests for
rescheduling due to my inability to secure legal representation. These
letters were sent in good faith and in accordance with procedural
expectations. However, they were not acknowledged, referenced, or
considered in the tribunal’s decision-making process.
The failure to engage with this correspondence constitutes a breach
of procedural fairness. Registered letters are legally significant and
serve as documented attempts to assert one’s rights. Their exclusion
from the record undermines the integrity of the process and raises
serious concerns about institutional accountability.
3. Denial of Representation and Eviction in Absentia
Due to the lack of available professional representation, I was
unable to attend the original hearing. Despite notifying the tribunal in
advance and requesting a rescheduling, the hearing proceeded in my
absence, resulting in an eviction notice. This decision was made without
my participation and without consideration of the circumstances that
prevented my attendance.
Issuing an eviction order under these conditions—where the appellant
has made documented efforts to engage and participate—violates the
principles of fairness and proportionality. It reflects a punitive
approach that disregards the realities faced by individuals navigating
complex legal systems without support.
4. Failure to Engage with Legal Concerns During Tribunal Proceedings
During the Tribunal hearing, I raised a direct and legally pertinent
question to the Legally Qualified Member (LQM) regarding the lawfulness
of the eviction notice issued against me. This notice was granted in my
absence, despite my prior written request—sent via registered post—for a
rescheduling due to my inability to secure professional representation.
The LQM responded that it was “not his job” to answer such a
question. This exchange was not recorded in the Tribunal Hearing Report,
despite its relevance to the fairness and legality of the proceedings.
The omission is significant: it reflects a broader pattern of
institutional disregard for procedural justice and the exclusion of
material concerns from the official record.
I submit that this failure to engage with a legitimate legal
challenge—and to document it—undermines the transparency and integrity
of the tribunal process. It exemplifies the systemic barriers I have
faced throughout this case, where key correspondence and legal arguments
have been repeatedly ignored or dismissed.
5. Pattern of Institutional Impunity
The issues outlined above are not isolated incidents. They form part
of a consistent pattern in which authorities and tribunals have failed
to respond to correspondence, omitted key facts from official records,
and dismissed legitimate legal concerns without explanation.
This pattern reflects a culture of impunity, where procedural
safeguards are bypassed and individuals are denied meaningful access to
justice. I believe this case warrants scrutiny not only for its
individual failings but for what it reveals about broader systemic
dysfunction.
6. Conclusion and Request
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Social
Security Commissioner:
- Review the procedural handling of my case, including the failure
to consider registered correspondence and the denial of
representation.
- Investigate the omission of material exchanges from the Tribunal
Hearing Report.
- Consider the cumulative impact of these failures on the fairness
and legality of the original decision.
I submit this appeal not only in pursuit of personal
redress but in the hope that it may contribute to greater accountability
and reform within the system.
=== === ===
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
a) I regret that I am late in submitting the attached OSSC1 (NI)
form. This is primarily due to the fact that I would have liked to be
able to discuss the contents of this letter with a professional lawyer
before sending it to you, which has turned out not to be possible for me
to do.
b) It continues to be the case for me that the difficulties I
have been experiencing -- continuously since around 1998 -- to
find a professional lawyer to advise and represent me, of the kind who
recognises and supports human rights law, and constitutional law, in
practical and meaningful ways, continue.
Some evidence of the long-standing and ongoing difficulties I continue
to experience with finding professional legal advice and representation
of the kind I need, can be found in the texts of the email and the
registered letter I sent to UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer KC MP on
March 31st 2025, at the following two www location:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/UKPrimeMinisterSirKeirStarmerMP-Email-Dated-31March2025/RegisteredLetter.htm
and, in the two replies I have received from 10 Downing Street at:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/UKPrimeMinisterSirKeirStarmerMP-Email-Dated-31March2025/Gmail.html#2Replies
c) Based on statements in a letter to me from Mrs Joanne Kennedy
(acting on behalf of the Registrar of Appeals), dated 13 August 2025, it
is my understanding the Appeal Service has already supplied your Office
with the Tribunal decision notice, and with the Statement of Reasons for
the Tribunal decision. Consequently, I believe the attached, completed
OSSC1 (NI) form is the only document I need to include with this
letter.
Yours sincerely,
William Finnerty.
ATTACHED:
Completed OSSC1 (NI) form.
=== === ===
|
|
