Ms A Pye v East Hampshire District Council — 2021

Ms Pye appealed against a prohibition notice served by East Hampshire District Council on 23 May 2019 in relation to Orchard Farm Animal Sanctuary. The tribunal found that the appeal was not presented until 5 December 2019, well outside the 21-day limit under rule 105(1)(a), which expired on 13 June 2019. The tribunal treated the time-limit point as preliminary and did not go on to determine whether the notice itself was valid.

The tribunal accepted that Ms Pye’s view of the notice changed after Mr Jewell’s visit on 11 June 2019, when she realised volunteers could not assist until remedial works were completed. However, it found that it had been reasonably practicable for her to appeal by 13 June 2019. The notice and covering letter had already told her that the appeal right existed, that there was a 21-day limit, that out-of-time appeals could be possible in some circumstances, and that an appeal could be made online. The tribunal also found that she could have appealed on 11, 12 or 13 June 2019.

In reaching that conclusion, the tribunal noted that Ms Pye’s internal complaint process and later complaint to the ombudsman did not affect the initial 21-day period, because those steps occurred after the deadline had already expired. It also found that her mental health conditions were under control during the relevant period and that there was no medical evidence showing that illness prevented an appeal. The tribunal therefore held that rule 105(1)(b) did not apply, the time limit could not be extended, and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.