Tenant lied about receiving S8 Notice hearing adjourned?

I really need to understand this. Does the decision in that partially cited Appeal turn on the Judge relying on the Common Law rules about service - and ignoring s196 LPA 1925? In which case how do other landlords (such as myself) prevent ourselves falling into the same trap?
In the past my tenancy agreements used to say that notices must be served in accordance with s.196 but they are now more explicit, and I wonder whether this wording would be enough to avoid an argument that a notice must "come into the hands" of a tenant:
8.12 The following provisions apply to notices and permissions:
1. All notices and any permission which one party is required to obtain from another must be in writing.
2. Any notice given to the landlord must be delivered to the landlord’s address given above unless notice of another address has been given by the landlord to the tenant.
3. Any notice given by the landlord to the tenant must be delivered to the premises or the last-known address of the tenant (or any of the people comprising the tenant).
4. Any notice given to the guarantor must be delivered to the last-known address of the guarantor.
5. Any notice shall be deemed to have been properly delivered if it is:
1. left at the relevant address in the same place that ordinary mail is left, in which case service shall be deemed to have taken place on the day it was left there, or
2. sent by Royal Mail or a courier, using a next day delivery service which requires a signature to be given by the person receiving the notice, in which case service shall be deemed to have taken place within the period guaranteed by the service provider.

Reply to the comment left by Julie Ford at 15/02/2023 - 09:09
Well done! I suspect the lawyer in question was simply trying to baffle the magistrales brain with bulls**t, knowing full well neither he nor the plaintiff will ever have heard of this judgement and the magistrate would’ve been made unsure by the apparent precedence of the quoted case.

You need to prepare your arguments in a bullet point form for the judge to read. I would use Julie’s points in your submission with a section with the heading of the cited case and bullet points as to why it’s not relevant in this case.
Also since your AST is silent on the point of service you are relying on statute to determine when service is deemed. Quote the relevant statutory clauses.

This whole issue is total BS there isn’t any requirement that the notice has been seen. It simply must be served at the most recent address the tenant has officially provided you with and if none has been provided it’s deemed served if delivered to the property, even when you know full well the tenant doesn’t live there. The obligation is on the tenant to keep you updated with their current address.

I've had a quick look at BAILII (Google it, a case search engine) quoting the case name as mentioned without luck. It may have appeared in a dusty textbook but have not been published in the Law Reports.
Sniff in specialist L&T places, best suggestion.

Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 18/02/2023 - 09:53
The issue of whether S196 can be relied on is covered in the paper that I have previously referenced a couple of times because without buying J Luba's book (which may or may not be the source used by the duty solicitor in the current case) it is the only commentary on the matter that I have been able to find. I suggest that those who think it is all nonsense consider and answer the argument developed in the paper ( https://www.hlpa.org.uk/cms/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/HLPA-Handout-Sarah-Steinhardt-March-2019.pdf ) and leading to the conclusion:

"Thus, section 196 may provide for a mechanism of deemed service but only where the
tenancy agreement expressly incorporates it, and where the wording of the tenancy
agreement is such as to “require” service of notice: Wandsworth v Atwell (1995) 27
HLR 536, CA; Enfield LBC v Devonish and Sutton (1997) 29 HLR 691, CA. Further, the
landlord must be prepared to “prove the terms of the agreement in any action for
possession following service of such a notice” Atwell p. 542"

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 18/02/2023 - 11:49Yes, sorry, I hadn't read that. I actually do have a copy of the said book, although I don't think I paid £75 for it. I think that book and "A Practical Approach to Landlord and Tenant" (Garner and Frith), are invaluable resources should you ever come upon anything you are unsure about with your tenancies. They are tax deductible and it's cheaper than making mistakes.
I came on here to correct my reply as I've now referred to it (at which point I read your message).
I was not aware that this only applied where the tenancy agreement specifically sets it out, (although I've never seen a tenancy agreement that didn't have this in it).
The wording referring to service of a s8 notice is as follows: p78 2.24 Defending Possession Proceedings.
"In the absence of an express admission by the tenant of service of the notice seeking possession, the burden of proof is on the landlord to show that the notice was properly served. The Law of Property Act 1925 s196 does not apply to notices served under HA 1988; it follows that the mere fact that the landlord has posted the document to the tenant by first class post will not mean that the tenant has in fact been served. However, a landlord can grant a tenancy with a clause in the tenancy agreement expressly incorporating LPA 1925 s196 or providing that all notices that are sent by first class post to the tenant are deemed served on the second day after posting. Otherwise, the common law rules apply and the landlord must prove that the notice has been brought to the attention of the tenant. (Wandsworth LBC v Atwell (1995) 27 HLR 536, CA.) Other than where the landlord has personally served the tenant, a landlord who cannot prove the notice has come to the attention of the tenant will not be able to rely on the section 8 notice."
Sorry to have given out incorrect advice, I've never had to use a s8 notice and my knowledge of these in depth aspects is clearly sketchy. every day's a school day!

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 18/02/2023 - 11:49
It is now 17 years since I last practised as a chartered surveyor in estate management, where most of my work involved legal documentation, but my recollection is that by the millennium the majority of commercial leases either explicitly incorporated s196 LPA 1925 or included words similar to those which I have been including in my own tenancy agreements, given above. In other words leases stated in terms how service of notices was to be validated.

Turning to the Housing Law Practitioners Association handout prepared by Sarah Steinhardt (thanks for that, very interesting), para. 39 refers to the issue of whether a Notice "comes into the tenant's hands" and explains why this is necessary at Common Law but para. 44 says: 'Alternatively, it is open to the parties to have a tenancy agreement that deems service in the event of the notice being sent in a certain way.' Is Ms Stenhardt saying that express provisions can override the Common Law requirement? I would like to know what others think.

Reply to the comment left by Michael Crofts at 18/02/2023 - 12:32
I think Kate Mellor has answered my question while I was typing it!

Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 18/02/2023 - 12:31Thanks Kate, that seems to be the definitive answer. Thankfully, properly drafted tenancy agreements include appropriate wording to avoid this particular stumbling block.

Reply to the comment left by Kate Mellor at 18/02/2023 - 12:31
Thanks Kate I have read both cases in full and have resigned myself to the fact that I will only succeed if the tenant does not turn up. I have another S8 drafted and will hand this to the tenant at court and start over.

Interestingly I was at a possession hearing with another Landlord on Thursday who has the same TA (from the same letting agent) and the Judge asked the tenant if she had received the S8 notice, she confirmed she has so the Landlord was successful.