Why do judges find the need to be pedantic?Make Text Bigger
I had to serve notice on a tenant as the landlord was selling. The tenant couldn’t find anywhere to move to because prices have gone up so much so went to the council and they said they’d house him upon receipt of a court order. The landlord wasn’t happy but it is what it is.
It came to the end of the section 21 so started accelerated possession proceedings and the tenant didn’t appeal anything as he just wanted his court order, but the judge wrote to the landlord with this:
“Clause 12.3 and note 5 of the tenancy agreement provide for service of notices in accordance with section 196 of the Law and Property Act (recorded delivery post). On what basis is it said that sending by ordinary first class post is good service?”
To be fair I normally deliver by hand and have never had a problem. This was by post as the tenant knew it was coming and he also acknowledged receipt. He just wants the council to house him, so as he hasn’t submitted an appeal. I have to ask what on earth the judge thinks he is playing at.
I have got the landlord to reply with the following so will see what happens, but one has to question the judges motives for being so awkward.
“Further to your letter dated 26th July I would advise the following;
1. s196(1) Law of Property Act 1925 requires the notice to be in writing – which it was
2. S196(3) of the Act states the notice is sufficiently served if left at the last known place of abode – which it was so left when delivered by the postman and receipt of the notice has been confirmed by the tenant.
I hope the above answers your question.”
I was also going to mention Civil procedure rules ( page 2 of the n215 certificate of service) provides for service by ordinary post but thought best not.
I will keep you updated
Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.