An interesting point on the service of a notice arose in the Lands Tribunal in Akorita v 36 Gensing Road Ltd [2009] LRX/16/2008; [2009] PLSCS 95. The case concerned a tenant’s service charge liability in respect of a leasehold flat. The tenant argued that the landlord had failed to consult with her before carrying out work (as is required by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which applies to residential service charges) and, as a result, that her liability to contribute to the cost of the work was limited to £250.
The lease provided that notices should be served on the tenant by leaving them at her last known business or residential address, or by affixing them to or leaving them on the demised premises. In either such case, notices were to be treated as served even though the tenant might not receive them. Alternatively, notices could be sent by ordinary post in a prepaid envelope addressed to the tenant at her last known business or residential address. In this case, notices were to be treated as served unless the Post Office returned them undelivered.
An interesting point on the service of a notice arose in the Lands Tribunal in Akorita v 36 Gensing Road Ltd [2009] LRX/16/2008; [2009] PLSCS 95. The case concerned a tenant’s service charge liability in respect of a leasehold flat. The tenant argued that the landlord had failed to consult with her before carrying out work (as is required by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which applies to residential service charges) and, as a result, that her liability to contribute to the cost of the work was limited to £250. The lease provided that notices should be served on the tenant by leaving them at her last known business or residential address, or by affixing them to or leaving them on the demised premises. In either such case, notices were to be treated as served even though the tenant might not receive them. Alternatively, notices could be sent by ordinary post in a prepaid envelope addressed to the tenant at her last known business or residential address. In this case, notices were to be treated as served unless the Post Office returned them undelivered. The landlord employed managing agents, who tried to contact the tenant. The previous managing agents had known that the tenant no longer lived in the flat and had used the correspondence address that she had supplied to them whenever they contacted her. Unfortunately, the new managing agents were unaware of this. They posted the landlord’s notice to the tenant at the flat, which was empty. The Post Office left the landlord’s letter in the entrance hall of the building, and it did not come to the attention of the tenant. Was the landlord’s notice validly served? The Lands Tribunal ruled that the landlord had agreed to use the tenant’s last known business or residential address when effecting service, or to affix notices to, or to leave them at, the flat. The landlord’s notice was posted to the flat, which was not the address for the tenant that was last known to the landlord’s previous managing agents – and it was not an address that the tenant had agreed could be used for postal service. Had the notice been affixed to or left on the demised premises? No. This would have required service by physically attaching the notice at the entrance to or by posting it through a letter box in the front door of the flat itself. A surprising number of disputes turn on whether a notice has been validly served. This case highlights that, where there is a change of managing agents, it is worth checking that all relevant information is passed on. The decision also reminds us that it is essential to comply with any statutory and/or contractual notice provisions. If notices are served, but no response is received, it is worth double-checking that notice requirements have been met, before incurring substantial costs that may be irrecoverable through the service charge. Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
