Service Of Notices Under The Landlord And Tenant Act 1954: Key Takeaways From Lamba V Enfield LBC

In this article, we will examine the recent High Court case of Lamba -v- Enfield LBC which serves a stark reminder to landlords to review the contents of their lease before serving any statutory notices.

The case concerned service of a notice under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“1954 Act”) by the Council as the landlord. Leases afforded protection under the 1954 Act will not simply come to an end on the expiry of the term; rather, the lease will normally continue on the same terms unless terminated in accordance with the 1954 Act.  A section 25 notice is a form of a statutory notice by which the landlord can oppose renewal of the lease or outline terms on which they are willing to renew.

Fortunately for the landlords, service of any notices under the 1954 Act is usually governed by section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (“1927 Act”), as applied by section 66(4) of the 1954 Act. Under section 23 of the 1927 Act, notice will be deemed served when it goes into the postal system as long as the notice is addressed correctly and sent by either registered post or recorded delivery. In other words, whether or not the notice is actually received is of no relevance.

However, in Lamba the lease clearly provided that notices “under or in connection with this lease (…) shall” be served in accordance with section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Under section 196, a notice will only be treated as served if not returned undelivered. In this case, the notice had indeed been returned as undelivered. The landlord attempted to rely on well-established case law and argued the service was nonetheless effective as it complied with the 1927 Act.

The Court, however, disagreed. It was found that the section 25 notice was caught by the wording of the lease and accordingly service under section 66 of the 1954 was excluded. The landlord was therefore required to serve in accordance with section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. As the landlord was unable to prove good service, the Court decided in tenant’s favour.

The case illustrates the importance of reviewing service provisions in leases and, if in any doubt, serving by more than one method.

At Buckles, we regularly deal with various landlord and tenant matters. Our Property team can assist with transactions involving commercial property while the Property Litigation department can assist in the event of a dispute.  If you need advice on your commercial property, do contact us for further discussion.

This website publication is not designed to provide legal or other advice and you should refrain from taking action based on its content.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.