Interpretation of this section?

Grolschevik

Ok lads, have a look at this:

From: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2014/en/act/pub/0021/sec0010.html#sec10

(6) On receipt of a valid review request the chief executive of the local authority concerned shall appoint as the reviewer of the tenancy warning concerned an officer or employee of a local authority who was not involved in the decision to issue the tenancy warning and who is senior in rank to the officer or employee who decided to issue that warning.

It has been put to me that this means that such a reviewer must be from a different local authority than that which issued the tenancy warning.

But I don't think that is unambiguous. Thoughts?

coylemj

Grolschevik wrote: »

It has been put to me that this means that such a reviewer must be from a different local authority than that which issued the tenancy warning.

That would be a reasonable interpretation if the line instead read....

an officer or employee of a local authority which was not involved in the decision to issue the tenancy warning


I think your original interpretation is correct, it simply states that it must be a different person. There's also the logistical issue that (e.g.) the CEO of Wicklow Co. Council can't simply 'appoint' someone from (e.g.) South Dublin Co. co. to review a case, that would have to be done by the Minister for the Environment.

Grolschevik

coylemj wrote: »

That would be a reasonable interpretation if the line instead read....

an officer or employee of a local authority which was not involved in the decision to issue the tenancy warning

That's what I reckoned.

my3cents

Why then does it say "the" authority at the start and then say "an" authority in the second instance?

"The" authority would be more understandable in the second instance unless they meant a different authority although using "an" authority could leave it open to get someone from another authority as well as someone from the same authority.

hullaballoo

my3cents wrote: »

Why then does it say "the" authority at the start and then say "an" authority in the second instance?

"The" authority would be more understandable in the second instance unless they meant a different authority although using "an" authority could leave it open to get someone from another authority as well as someone from the same authority.

Doubtless because the person who drafted it intended it to mean a different local authority.

However, that's not how legal interpretation works.

my3cents

hullaballoo wrote: »

Doubtless because the person who drafted it intended it to mean a different local authority.

However, that's not how legal interpretation works.

I don't know if it could occur but if there was no one in the local authority who was senior and had no connection with the case then does the wording leave it open to engage someone from another local authority?

hullaballoo

my3cents wrote: »

I don't know if it could occur but if there was no one in the local authority who was senior and had no connection with the case then does the wording leave it open to engage someone from another local authority?

Yes, the appointment of someone from a different authority is allowed under coylemj's interpretation, however; as he has also pointed out, there would be significant practical issues in appointing someone from a different authority. There may be some sort of local arrangement in place between LAs to deal with those issues, who's to know?

Mr. Incognito

On receipt of a valid review request the chief executive of the local authority concerned shall appoint as the reviewer of the tenancy warning concerned an officer or employee of a local authority who was not involved in the decision to issue the tenancy warning and who is senior in rank to the officer or employee who decided to issue that warning.

It clearly means a different person as the chief executive the local authority concerned would not have the authority to appoint someone outside his local authority to review it.

It just means an internal review by someone at a more senior level. That is what was intended and is clearly expressed.

hullaballoo

It's not in the least bit clearly expressed!

And it's not evident from the legislation that the CEO of one LA has no authority to appoint an officer or employee in another LA.

nuac

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's not in the least bit clearly expressed!

And it's not evident from the legislation that the CEO of one LA has no authority to appoint an officer or employee in another LA.

Under Local Government Law the CEO can issue directions to staff in his/her own local authority only.
Any other arrangement would required an agreement between the relevant LAs

Marcusm

hullaballoo wrote: »

It's not in the least bit clearly expressed!

And it's not evident from the legislation that the CEO of one LA has no authority to appoint an officer or employee in another LA.

I have to say that is how I would interpret it; appointing someone is the act, he would have to find and agree the terms with another person. THis is hardly different to valuation clauses in commercial contracts authorising valuation by a partner in an accounting firm by the president for the timebeing of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. There is no consideration of the desire or entitlement to instruct in such a clause.

Peregrinus

I think the effect of the section is that the reviewer has to be:

(a) senior in rank to the person who issued the warning;

(b) someone who was not themselves involved in the issue of the warning; and

(c) someone who is an officer or employee of either the same or a different local authority.

I agree that there are practical issues about appointing someone from a different local authority. But I suspect the possiblity is left open because there may be cases where, in the original local authority, there is simply no more senior officer who has had no involvement in issuing the warning.

In practice I guess that most reviewers are from the same local authority, but where this can't be done an officer of a neighbouring authority is appointed with the agreement of the CEO of that authority, on the basis that "we'll do the same for you when the need arises".

sin0city

I'd agree with Peregrinus.

..."of a local authority..." leaves it wide open.
Practical issues flowing from that are a separate issue.

If the drafter had wanted to limit it to the local authority that issued the warning they could have used the word "the" instead of "a".

hullaballoo

nuac wrote: »

Under Local Government Law the CEO can issue directions to staff in his/her own local authority only.
Any other arrangement would required an agreement between the relevant LAs

I did say that in an earlier post.

I'm not sure it can realistically be argued that the section is clearly drafted.

Mr. Incognito

sin0city wrote: »

I'd agree with Peregrinus.

..."of a local authority..." leaves it wide open.
Practical issues flowing from that are a separate issue.

If the drafter had wanted to limit it to the local authority that issued the warning they could have used the word "the" instead of "a".

No drafter would do this in case that authority had no senior offices in that authority so it would need to be moved outside that authority.

The ambiguity stems from the fact that it needs to accomodate such eventualities.

Who is a person in drafting, which is an authority.

I thought it was clear enough personally

Peregrinus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

No drafter would do this in case that authority had no senior offices in that authority so it would need to be moved outside that authority.

The ambiguity stems from the fact that it needs to accomodate such eventualities.

Who is a person in drafting, which is an authority.

I thought it was clear enough personally

T%he drafting's not brilliant, I agree. But the pronoun "who" definitely refers to an individual, not an organisation.

If the intention had been to draft so that the reviewing officer had to be from a different local authority, I think that would have been put very differently, e.g.

"On receipt of a valid review request the chief executive of the local authority concerned shall appoint as the reviewer of the tenancy warning concerned an officer or employee of another local authority . . . "