| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
authority to review |
time limitation |
|
Summary:
The BOR did not have the jurisdiction to decide whether the Commission had rightly refused to write off the debt and the Umpire erred in not cancelling the BOR's decision in this respect. The debtor should have proceeded by requesting a judicial review before the Trial Division of the FCA and not by appealing to the Umpire. Obviously the Commission must record its decision and convey it to the person concerned.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| reconsideration of claim |
overpayment |
authority to write off |
|
Summary:
The BOR did not have the jurisdiction to decide whether the Commission had rightly refused to write off the debt and the Umpire erred in not cancelling the BOR's decision in this respect. The debtor should have proceeded by requesting a judicial review before the Trial Division of the FCA and not by appealing to the Umpire. Obviously the Commission must record its decision and convey it to the person concerned.
| Issue: |
Sub-Issue 1: |
Sub-Issue 2: |
Sub-Issue 3: |
| board of referees |
legislative authority |
discretionary powers |
|
Summary:
The BOR did not have the jurisdiction to decide whether the Commission had rightly refused to write off the debt and the Umpire erred in not cancelling the BOR's decision in this respect. The debtor should have proceeded by requesting a judicial review before the Trial Division of the FCA and not by appealing to the Umpire. Obviously the Commission must record its decision and convey it to the person concerned.
