Having now read the "Scotish Decision" (have I turned into an actorrrr?) about the reasonable time requirement under Article 6(1) of the Human Rights Act, I feel that I want to use it at an appeal this afternoon. This is a case whereby the appellant made his appeal on 24th April 2002, yes - over two years ago, and the matter has only been listed to be heard by tribunal today. The appellant has not contributed to the delay in any way, the matter is not a complex one, the inactivity causing the delay is purely because of adminastrative inadequacies on the part of the local authrority. Any ideas out there about how I might be wasting my time because of case law of which I have no knowledge, or other reasons? And what could the outcome be if I succeed - for example, would the decision of overpayment be regarded as having no authority and the overpayment as not existing because of a violation of Article 6(1). Help or critisism welcome. Thank you.

You might well have an HRA argument, but what is a "reasonable time" depneds not only on the reasons for the dealy, but also on the consequences of that delay.

If overpayment recovery has been suspended all this time, and there is no substantive issue other than the overpayment ie no issue of ongoing entitlement, or a fair hearing otherwise being prejudiced) then the delay could be viewed simply as resulting in your client being given an interest free loan.

The Scottish case may well be 78 pages long and reading it may well be more difficult than learning the lines from Macbeth (I am not superstitious!!!!!!!), but have a look at CIS4220-2002 before you proceed with your HRA argument.