Victor Frances v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombuds
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to comply with Tribunal directions requiring clarification of jurisdiction, and was on notice that non-compliance would result in striking out under rule 8(1).
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Appellant: Victor Frances; Respondent: Parliamentary and Health Service Ombuds
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Struck Out
- Outcome
- appeal struck out
- Legal Topics
- Tribunal Jurisdiction, Non Compliance With Directions, Striking Out Appeals
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Victor Frances
Appellant
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombuds
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Struck Out
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to determine the appeal against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman?
- 2 Should the appeal be struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal directions?
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was struck out because the appellant failed to comply with Tribunal directions requiring clarification of jurisdiction, and was on notice that non-compliance would result in striking out under rule 8(1).
Court Disposition
appeal struck out
Orders
- The appeal against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombuds is struck out under rule 8(1) for non-compliance with Tribunal direction.
- This order does not strike out the separate appeal against South West London ICB.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Neutral citation number: [2025] UKFTT 01491 (GRC) First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Parliamentary and Health Service Ombuds Case Reference: FT/QJ/2025/0002 Decided without a hearing Decision given on: 10/12/2025 Before JUDGE HARRIS Between VICTOR FRANCES and Parliamentary and Health Service Ombuds Appellant Respondent Decision: The appeal against the PHSO filed by the Appellant is struck out under rule 8(1) for non- compliance with a Tribunal direction where the Appellant was on notice that failure to comply would result in striking out. The appeal against PHSO REASONS 1. The Appellant lodged an appeal using the GRC1 form on 13 October 2025. The appeal appeared to state that the appeal is against a decision of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman with the reference C-2063882 dated 26 June 2024. It appears that this is a decision which the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to determine. 2. By Directions dated 16 October 2025 the Appellant was required to write to the Tribunal to state what legislation he considers gives this Tribunal the jurisdiction to consider this matter and was invited to state why the matter should not be struck out for want of jurisdiction pursuant to rule 8(4). The Appellant did not comply with either of those Directions. © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2025 3. The Appellant was directed to note that failure to comply with those Directions could lead to the Tribunal striking out the appeal for non-compliance with a direction of the Tribunal pursuant to rule 8(1) regardless of any consideration under rule 8(2)(a). 4. The Appellant failed to comply with the Direction dated 16 October 2025 and accordingly there are grounds to strike out the appeal. 5. I note that on 13 October 2025 the Appellant also submitted a separate form GRC1 to start an appeal against South West London ICB with a different decision date (30 July 2024) but with the same reference number. For the avoidance of doubt, this order does not strike out this separate appeal, in respect of which I have made separate directions. Signed: Judge Harris Date: 4 December 2025 2