What is the main reason that is involved with the whole tax depreciation process?

LAAO did not investigate allegations in November 1994 that the opponent has undeclared business interests as thoroughly as they should have done, and delayed in pursuing effectively. allegations in December 1996 that the opponent has undeclared income from employment and other assets. Following LALO’s enquiries of the opponent in April 1997 his legal aid was withdrawn in June 1997. The Ombudsman found that in the absence of maladministration that would probably have been done in March 1997, but that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the outcome of the case would in that event have been different.

From March 1996 onwards Mr X made representations to the Legal Aid Board (LAB) about the Depreciation Schedule Ato financial eligibility for legal aid of his opponent in proceedings. LAB withdrew the opponent’s legal aid in August 1996 but erroneously reinstated it in September in January 1997 they withdrew it again. In the meantime, they withdrew Mr X’s legal aid on two occasions on the grounds that the litigation was likely to be fruitless if both parties qualified for legal aid.

In January 1998 they withdrew Mr X’s legal aid on the basis of information about his financial eligibility which the Legal Aid Assessment Office had obtained from the local benefits office. The Ombudsman found that the question of the continuation of the opponent’s legal aid following Mr X’s representations had been poorly handled but there had been no consequent injustice to Mr X. as it was probable that the opponent would in any event have continued to defend the action on a private basis.

The Ombudsman found shortcomings in the handling of Mr X’s legal aid but was unable to uphold his complained that it ultimately been wrongly withdrawn. In January 1996 Mr X made representations to the Legal Aid Board (LAB) against the grant of legal aid to his opponent in proceedings, primarily on the grounds that the opponent’s case against him was spurious. LAB granted the opponent a limited legal aid certificate to obtain counsel’s opinion on the merits of the case. In the light of that opinion they subsequently granted the opponent legal aid to proceed to trial.