Cases - Trafford Housing Trust Ltd v Louise Rubinstein and others

Record details

Name
Trafford Housing Trust Ltd v Louise Rubinstein and others
Date
[2013]
Citation
UKUT 0581 (LC)
Legislation
Keywords
Service charges – Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 20 – Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2001, schedule 1 – calculation of 30 days period specified in the notice for consultation
Summary

The LVT made an interim determination that the appellant landlord had served defective consultation notices on the respondent long lessees. The LVT held that the notices fell 2 days short of the prescribed 30 days consultation period in accordance with schedule 1 to The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2001 ('the Regulations'). The landlord had posted the notices using a commercial postal courier, TNT.

The landlord appealed arguing that when considering the meaning of 'the period of 30 days beginning with the date of the notice' the correct meaning of 'the date of the notice' was, namely the date of posting of the notice.

The reference in the Regulations to 'the date of the notice' is a reference to the date on which the recipient is notified of the contents of the notice i.e. the date of service (whether deemed or actual) or receipt, not the date of posting.

If a lease does not contain a deeming provision, a landlord can rely on 2 statutory provisions:

  1. section 196(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 – deemed date of delivery of a registered letter in the ordinary course of post; or
  2. section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 – deemed service effected at the time the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, if the letter containing the document was properly addressed, pre-paid and posted.

In the present case there was no evidence as to the time at which the notice would be delivered in the ordinary course of TNT’s postal service. In the circumstances, the LVT’s findings, in light of the facts found, that the notices arrived on the second day after posting stands. Accordingly, the notices failed to comply with the Regulations because they fell a day short for the purposes of consultation.