Local authority tenant sending notice of nuisance to address on rent card not principal address of authority – Whether notice validly served within section 106 of the Environmental Protection Act 1995 – Magistrates’ court dismissing complaint – High Court dismissing appeal
The appellant, an Islington Borough Council tenant, sent notice of a nuisance of a Pharaoh Ant infestation. The notice was sent pursuant to section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1995. It was addressed to the Senior Estate Manager, Canonbury West Neighbourhood Office, Arran Walk, London N1 2YJ. The address had been obtained from the appellant’s rent card, where alongside the address was written “Important Notice Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – Section 48” and below which stated “If you wish to serve a notice on the Council (including Notices in legal proceedings) the notice should be served at the address shown in the Neighbourhood Office Box on the left. This notice only applies if you are a tenant of the Council”. It was common ground that the notice was sent to the principal office of the authority. The magistrates’ court dismissed the complaint on the ground that failure to send the notice to the principal office had the effect that the notice was not properly given. The appellant appealed.
Section 160 of Part IX of the 1995 Act stated that “(1) Any notice required or authorised by or under this Act to be served on or given to an inspector may be served or given by delivering it to him or by leaving it at or sending it by post to, his office . . . (4) . . . the proper address of any person on whom any such notice is to be given shall be his last known address . . . (5) if the person to be served with or given any such notice has specified an address in the United Kingdom other than his proper address within the meaning of subsection (4) above as the one at which he or someone on his behalf will accept notices of the same description as that notice, that notice shall also be treated for the purposes of this section . . . as his proper address”. The appellant submitted that the authority had on the rent card specified an address other that their proper address as one at which they would accept notice. It was submitted therefore that a notice under section 82 could fairly be described as “a notice of the same description” within section 160(5) of the 1995 Act, and therefore it had been validly served on the council by sending it to the address specified on the rent card.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
The provision in sections 48, 54 and 160 of the 1987 Act for notices was intended to apply to notices required or authorised to be served by the 1987 Act, rather than other Acts such as the 1995 Act. Although requirements as to what could constitute notice had been liberally interpreted, the reasoning behind such liberal interpretation had no application to the 1995 Act, which involved possible criminal penalties. It could not be right that the mere compliance with section 48 of the 1987 Act by providing an address amounted to an authorisation for all documents connected with legal proceedings to be served there. Therefore, since the notice on the senior estate manager did not comply with section 160 of the 1995 Act, no valid notice had been served. Rogan v Woodfield Building Services Ltd [1995] 1 EGLR 72, considered.
Helen Clarke (instructed by Stennett & Stennett) appeared for the applicant; Christopher Lundie (instructed by the solicitor to Islington London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
