Landlords must provide tenants with their up-to-date addresses so notices can be served
Key points
- The provisions in section 23(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 apply only to notices served under the Act itself or under any legislation that incorporates
the section - Landlords who provide addresses in leases and then move, or who acquire reversions to existing leases, should supply tenants with up-to-date addresses at the earliest possible opportunity
The rules that apply when landlords and tenants serve notices on each other are extremely important. Notices are usually served in accordance with section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927. The provisions are similar, but by no means identical.
Section 196 applies to notices required or authorised to be served under the 1925 Act, as well as by any instrument affecting property in general (unless a contrary intention appears). By contrast, section 23 was framed specifically for the purpose of regulating relationships between landlords and tenants.
Section 23(2) provides that unless or until a tenant has been notified that a landlord has ceased to be entitled to rent and has been provided with the name and address of the new landlord, “any claim, notice, request, demand or other instrument which the tenant shall serve upon or deliver to the original landlord shall be deemed to have been served upon or delivered to the landlord of such holding”. Does this apply to any and all notices given by tenants?
There would appear to be much strength in the argument that tenants need such protection in all cases. However, in Levett-Dunn v NHS Property Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 943 (Ch); [2016] PLSCS 123, Judge Cooke decided that section 23(2) is relevant only to notices served under the 1927 Act, or under legislation such as the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, which provide for the service of notices in accordance with section 23.
Break notice
The case concerned the validity of a contractual break notice served by the tenant of leasehold offices. The lease was granted by four individuals who all supplied the same address for themselves, even though it was the address of only one of them. That individual subsequently transferred his interest in the property to his co-owners, but the tenant was not informed and
had no reason to believe that this had happened.
The tenant sent four copies of its break notice, in good time, by recorded delivery to the individuals at the address specified in the lease. Following the deadline for the service of the notice, the landlords sought a declaration that the break notice was ineffective. They claimed that it had not been properly served on them because they were not located at the address to which it was sent.
Section 23(2)
The parties’ lease incorporated section 196 of the 1925 Act and stated that “service on any one of the parties comprising the landlord shall be deemed to be service on all”. So, if the tenant was entitled to regard the individual associated with the address given in the lease as still being one of the persons comprising “the landlord”, and had served him, such service would constitute effective service on the current landlords. The tenant argued that he had been so entitled, by virtue of section 23(2), but was unable to point to any decided authority on the point.
The judge accepted that there was potential for injustice if tenants have, in good faith, served the person they believe to be their landlord, not having been informed of any change, only to discover too late in the day that that person has transferred his interest to someone else. However, he did not consider that section 23(2) applied generally.
The judge noted that section 23(1) applies solely to notices given under the 1927 Act and decided that it would be odd if one of two subsections dealing with similar subject matter was intended to have a general effect, when the other was not. Furthermore, section 23 had been specifically incorporated into other statutes. This would be unnecessary if the provision applies more widely.
Abode or business
Fortunately for the tenant, that was not the end of the story. The lease stated that notices could be given in accordance with section 196 of the 1925 Act. This provides that notices shall be sufficiently served if they are left at, or are sent by recorded delivery post to, the “last known place of abode or business” of a landlord. Did the address to which the break notice was sent qualify?
The judge noted that the landlords described themselves in the lease as being “of” the address given. Any reasonable person would understand this to mean that they were nominating that address for the service of notices and, if they chose to use it as their address, the nature or quality of their activity there was a matter for them, not the tenant. So it did not matter that the address was not actually their place of abode or business.
The landlords must have been satisfied that notices would reach them there. If and when circumstances changed, it was within their power to notify the tenant of their new address. They had not done so and any risk of notices not reaching them had fallen on them. Consequently, the tenant’s break notice had been properly served and the lease was at an end.
The decision reminds us that landlords who provide addresses in leases and then move, or who acquire reversions to existing leases, should supply tenants with up-to-date addresses at which they can be contacted, at the earliest possible opportunity. As this case demonstrates, failure to do so could cost landlords both time and money.
Allyson Colby is a property law consultant
