IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Gladys]

22 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

The full judgment on the case is here:

https://www.judgments.im/content/CHP21_037-20 Dec 21.pdf

There doesn't seem to have been any compensation paid though and Bayley doesn't seem to be entitled to any, so it seems rather a Pyrrhic victory.

Because he didn't ask for any, but he can still make a claim for damages.  The conclusion made reference to the extreme circumstances at the time too, so possibly not the floodgate opener it appears at first. Anyway  I will read the whole judgement as it is an interesting area. 

[Roger Mexico]

13 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Because he didn't ask for any, but he can still make a claim for damages.  

Not according to the Deemster:

29. Mr Bayley made no claim for damages, other than in a vague manner stating that he has been “caused great and unnecessary inconvenience / claimant costs and continue to do so”. He stated at the hearing that this case is a matter of principle, rather than one of monetary compensation. It is now far too late for him in any event to make a claim for damages. This ought to have been set out in detail in his claim form. [my bold]

[Gladys]

12 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Not according to the Deemster:

29. Mr Bayley made no claim for damages, other than in a vague manner stating that he has been “caused great and unnecessary inconvenience / claimant costs and continue to do so”. He stated at the hearing that this case is a matter of principle, rather than one of monetary compensation. It is now far too late for him in any event to make a claim for damages. This ought to have been set out in detail in his claim form. [my bold]

You are right, I misread the bit in bold.  The fact remains, however, that he did not have any compensation because he didn't ask or quantify his loss.   Also, the deemster reluctantly came to his decision and the circumstances are very specific.  Reading between the lines, it seems that the residency qualification was considered as needing to be satisfied at the date of an application for the entry permit rather than at the time of entry.  Quite specific circumstances. 

[hissingsid]

Absolute clown of clowns.

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

Absolute clown of clowns.

Who?

[hissingsid]

The idiot who brought this to court.

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The full judgment on the case is here:

https://www.judgments.im/content/CHP21_037-20 Dec 21.pdf

There doesn't seem to have been any compensation paid though and Bayley doesn't seem to be entitled to any, so it seems rather a Pyrrhic victory.

The judgment is interesting for as much that it is silent about a number of things, apparently, which haven’t been explored and for which there appear to be no findings of fact.

First. He’s married, with children. He originally applied to come to the IoM for 48 hours to execute sale documentation. That was impossible from 23/12/20. You had to quarantine for 14 days unless arriving on compassionate grounds for a shorter period. Anyway all documentation could have been executed under PoA.

Where was the residence of the wife and children? We know the eldest daughter is 18 or 19 ( born in 2001 ). Surely, where his wife and family were residing in late 2020/early 2021 would determine his principal residence. The fact he was stuck in Egypt, where he had been sent by his employers, in an hotel, seems to imply he had a principal residence somewhere else. There is no mention of application by wife or family to be allowed entry. 

Second. His tax, NI and child benefit residence would assist determining residence. Wonder what they were.

Third. Seems he changed his position, from selling to taking up residence, to selling.

Fourth. If, after 14/2/21 the tenants had moved out, he had left his hotel, and the wife and children had left wherever they were, then it’s possible the house in Port Lewaigue may have become his principal residence. And an application after that date might have succeeded.

I’d anticipate an appeal.

Seems, even if it isn’t appealed, it’s a case limited to its facts, with no wider application. The legislation isn’t challenged or declared incompatible. Just one decision to refuse entry on the basis that the island wasn’t his principal residence. As such it’s not human rights, but a Wednesbury unreasonable application of the law in the decision making process by determining he wasn’t resident.

 

[Gladys]

Thanks John.  Does tax residency impact on residency under the regs?  They state that to be registered resident a person must own or lease a home or principal place of residence on the island and the Chief Secretary must be satisfied that they are in fact a resident.  Nothing is said about tax or NI residency status.  

Looking at the facts, his house here was rented out, but he occupied a property in Qatar funded by his employer, so perhaps while his house was rented out his principal residence was in Qatar as there was no where else to go.  No idea what the tax or other residency rules are in Qatar, but it is possible that he was taxed there as that was where he was employed.   It could get very complicated if the tax residency angle is introduced. 

ETA What about the rental income earned on his property here?

Edited December 28, 2021 by Gladys

[John Wright]

19 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Thanks John.  Does tax residency impact on residency under the regs?  They state that to be registered resident a person must own or lease a home or principal place of residence on the island and the Chief Secretary must be satisfied that they are in fact a resident.  Nothing is said about tax or NI residency status.  

Looking at the facts, his house here was rented out, but he occupied a property in Qatar funded by his employer, so perhaps while his house was rented out his principal residence was in Qatar as there was no where else to go.  No idea what the tax or other residency rules are in Qatar, but it is possible that he was taxed there as that was where he was employed.   It could get very complicated if the tax residency angle is introduced. 

ETA What about the rental income earned on his property here?

They’d be indicators, whether he was taxed as resident or non resident. He’d be taxed on his Manx rental income either as a resident or non resident. No tax free personal allowances if non resident? It’s all part of the picture. Of course there are lots of categories of resident, permanent, principal, tax, ordinarily, etc.

[Gladys]

25 minutes ago, John Wright said:

They’d be indicators, whether he was taxed as resident or non resident. He’d be taxed on his Manx rental income either as a resident or non resident. No tax free personal allowances if non resident? It’s all part of the picture. Of course there are lots of categories of resident, permanent, principal, tax, ordinarily, etc.

Yes, there are, but the regs make no reference to anything other than having a home here. 

Anyway, as we have said, the circumstances are quite specific. 

I suppose other transactions were executed under a power of attorney or by courier delivery of documents. 

[trench12]

currently in Spain but different experience to John

Not had any requset for a QR code other than when my wife went to her aquarobics class a last week ............but she was already a member and had been going to the class for some time.

Had to fill in contact details at a restaurant last week ........NIE number/passport number/ name and phone number .......but only after we had ordered and started on the wine !

masks in the usual places ...shops, taxis, public transport, about 50/50 on the streets where people cannot distance

 

%  of space taken up in in side largerly ignored in bars and most restaurants...............no enforcement of the rules by Policia Local, Guardia largely absent  

council setting up for NYE in local square !

[Paulos The Great]

5 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

The full judgment on the case is here:

https://www.judgments.im/content/CHP21_037-20 Dec 21.pdf

There doesn't seem to have been any compensation paid though and Bayley doesn't seem to be entitled to any, so it seems rather a Pyrrhic victory.

Thanks that’s really interesting. That email trail seems to document how generally unhelpful they were to lots of people. So he’s owned the house since 2001 and doesn’t seem to own a property anywhere else and was stuck in a hotel in Egypt unable to go anywhere. But as there’s a tenant in it, it can’t be his main residence. Despite him saying it’s the only property he owns and him presumably paying IOM rates and IOM tax on the rental income. 

[Ramseyboi]

 

[Gladys]

49 minutes ago, Paulos The Great said:

Thanks that’s really interesting. That email trail seems to document how generally unhelpful they were to lots of people. So he’s owned the house since 2001 and doesn’t seem to own a property anywhere else and was stuck in a hotel in Egypt unable to go anywhere. But as there’s a tenant in it, it can’t be his main residence. Despite him saying it’s the only property he owns and him presumably paying IOM rates and IOM tax on the rental income. 

But so could a lot of people who own property here and never set foot in it.  If he had been allowed back it was to transact the sale of the property, not to resume residence there.  Therefore he would have no place of residence here, let alone a principal one. 

What seems to be the reason for the decision is nobody addressed his question about returning to take up residence after the end of the tenancy rather than to complete the sale.  The answer may have been the same, but that option was not explained despite him asking. 

It has to be said though, if you were without a place to live, then wouldn't your decision be to forget about the sale and regain occupation at the end of the tenancy?  Can't understand why not being able to enter the island would make you think.your only option was to conclude the sale.

 

[Paulos The Great]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

It has to be said though, if you were without a place to live, then wouldn't your decision be to forget about the sale and regain occupation at the end of the tenancy?  Can't understand why not being able to enter the island would make you think.your only option was to conclude the sale.

Yes I agree with that, But maybe he elected to be honest rather than lie? It looks like he was waiting for a divorce payment in 2007 from the clip you linked. So looks like his daughter born in 2001 was born here, the (ex) family home was here, and he works tax free in Saudi Arabia. If he doesn’t own any other properly in the world and he pays Manx tax withheld at source on his rental income surely it is still his main residence and tax base whether he’s selling it or not? 

I’d hope for some leniency if I’d had a place here I had family ties to for 20 years, I was stuck living in a hotel for 5 months, and my personal stuff was going to end up in a skip.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Paulos The Great
Rental