Report comment

What the judge meant was that, if there had been a solicitor, it would have made things much easier, because (a) there would have been someone to manage the matter and there might thus have been fewer delays and (b) the solicitor could have been blamed for the fact that the wrong avenue of challenge was pursued:

"I am satisfied that the Applicant is not substantially to blame for the delay in the making of the necessary appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. She was for extended periods a litigant in person. She was represented at hearings on an ad hoc basis by relatively junior albeit able Counsel on a direct access basis, but that is not a complete substitute for being represented by experienced solicitors in a matter such as this. She should have been advised that such an appeal was a prerequisite of any challenge by her to her underlying substantive liability for the council tax in question, and both the Croydon County Court and the magistrates court had ample opportunity to advise her of this."

I was not aware that it was for courts to "advise" parties, especially when the party in question will not disclose her address and is represented by a direct-access barrister.

At most, the judge was saying that, had there been two heads rather than one, one of them might have spotted the problem.