A document that arrived in the hands of the intended recipient by an unorthodox route had been validly served

Rating authorities issue completion notices when it comes to their attention that a newly constructed building has been completed or can reasonably be expected to be completed within three months. The notice must identify the building and specify the date that the authority considers to be the completion date, which is either not more than three months from the date of service of the notice or, in the case of a building that has already been completed, the date of the notice itself. Westminster City Council v UKI (Kingsway) Ltd [2015] UKUT 0301 (LC) concerned the validity of a completion notice purporting to bring 130,000 sq ft of office space, with a rateable value of £2,750,000, onto the rating list. The Valuation Tribunal decided that the completion notice was defective and that it had not been validly served. This resulted in the removal of the premises from the rating list, but the Upper Tribunal has overturned the decision. The notice in question was addressed to the “Owner” and was delivered by hand to the property, where it was given to a receptionist employed by the facilities management company that managed the building for the owner. The company did not have actual or ostensible authority to accept service of legal documents for the owner. Nonetheless, the receptionist scanned the notice and transmitted it electronically to the owner, who appealed against the notice. Was the completion notice defective because it was not addressed to the owner by name? The tribunal asked itself what the Local Government Finance Act 1988 requires. It noted that paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 4A stipulates that a completion notice must specify the building to which it relates and the day which the authority proposes as the completion date, without requiring any other information or particulars. The tribunal noted that notices often refer only to the status or capacity of the recipient and decided that it was not necessary to identify the intended recipient by name, rather than by status, for the purposes of the statute. Parties who receive completion notices will know whether they are the owner of the building and the intended recipient of the notice. Therefore, the notice was valid, even though the owner was not named. The second issue that the tribunal had to consider was whether the completion notice had been validly served. Sub-paragraph 8 of Schedule 4A deals with the permissible methods of serving a completion notice. The tribunal ruled that the opening words of the paragraph – “Without prejudice to any other mode of service” – made it clear that the methods of service mentioned are not mandatory and that any other method of service that brings a completion notice to the attention of the owner will suffice. If good service is admitted, the mode of service will be irrelevant. In this case, the rating authority had not employed any of the permissible modes of service. This meant that the risk of non-receipt remained with the authority. But the notice did come to the attention of the owner, who had acted on it by appealing against it. Therefore, the notice had been validly served. It is worth noting that the tribunal rejected arguments that onward transmission to the intended destination by one or more stages and in electronic form, was fatal to service. Since there was no dispute about receipt of the electronic copy, there was no justification for distinguishing between paper and electronic communications. Allyson Colby is a property law consultant