Judges at the Court of Appeal are today being asked to decide on the validity of a completion notice served on an incomplete building to a receptionist employed by a management company that did not own the building, at an address that was different from the owner’s registered address.
The owner, UKI (Kingsway) Limited, says the notice was not valid, but Westminster City Council, which issued the notice, says that it was, because the agent scanned the completion notice and e-mailed it to the owner.
The case, which has flip flopped though the appeals system, raises points about the practicalities of serving completion notices and the validity of electronic communications in such circumstances.
A completion notice is served by local authorities on the owners of properties to notify them that they consider the building to be finished and therefore eligible to be charged rates. They can be served up to three months before the property is finished.
The dispute centers on floors 3-6 of No 1 Kingsway, WC2, which was served with a completion notice by Westminster Council on 5 March 2015.
The completion notice was addressed to “the owner” without specifying who that owner was, Daniel Kosinsky QC, for the owner, told the Court of Appeal today. It specified a completion date of 1 June 2012 and was delivered by hand to the property itself, not the owner’s registered property.
The notice was left with the receptionist, who was employed by a facilities management company, not the owner, who had no authority to accept the document on behalf of the owner. The document was scanned and then lost. The facilities management company e-mailed the scan to the owner.
The owner challenged the validity of the notice. The President of the Valuation Tribunal of England and Wales found in its favour, ruling that the completion notice had not been served on the owner of the building.
However, on appeal the Deputy President of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) ruled that the eventual receipt of the notice amounted to good service.
The owner asked the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the ruling and Kitchin LJ agreed, saying that the case “raises a point of practical importance regarding the serving of completion notices”.
Kosinski argued today that, as a matter of statute, the notice was invalid.
“Properly construed, the requirement on the billing authority was to serve the completion notice on the owner,” he said in his skeleton argument. “None of the statutory means of for service were satisfied.”
He added that “indirect service” did not satisfy the statutory requirements.
UKI (Kingsway) Ltd v Westminster Council
Court of Appeal, 24 January 2017