Naila Tabassam v Manchester City Council
[2024] UKUT 93 (LC)
Newcastle City Council v Mahmoud Abdallah
21 May 2024
[2024] UKUT 140 (LC)
Upper Tribunal
A council sent letters to a landlord's old address about a housing licence. The landlord didn't get them. A court said the council did what the law requires, even if the letters weren't received; but the court also gave the landlord another chance to show why he shouldn't be fined because he had a good reason (like not knowing the council should be contacted at a different address).
Key Facts
- •Newcastle City Council (appellant) issued a licence to Mahmoud Abdallah (respondent) under section 88 of the Housing Act 2004.
- •The licence included conditions requiring Mr. Abdallah to provide information on demand.
- •The council sent requests for information to Mr. Abdallah's old address (6 Primrose Lane), which he no longer occupied.
- •Mr. Abdallah did not receive the requests and failed to provide the information.
- •The council imposed a financial penalty of £654.66 under section 249A of the 2004 Act.
- •The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) cancelled the penalty, finding the demand for information was not validly served.
- •The council appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Legal Principles
Section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 governs service of documents by local authorities. It allows service by post to the last known address, even if not received.
Birmingham City Council v Bravington [2023] EWCA Civ 308
Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 deems service by post effective unless the contrary is proved. However, proving non-receipt affects only timing, not validity of service.
R v County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee ex parte Rossi [1956] 1 QB 682; Calladine-Smith v Saveorder Ltd [2011] EWHC 2501 (Ch)
The 'last known address' for service under section 233 is determined by the specific department dealing with the matter, not the council as a whole. Reasonable inquiries are required to determine this address.
Oldham MBC v Tanna [2017] EWCA Civ 50; London Borough of Newham v Ahmed [2016] EWHC 679 (Admin); Newham LBC v Miah [2016] EWHC 1043 (Admin)
A licence under section 85 of the 2004 Act is an 'instrument affecting property' for the purposes of section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
None explicitly stated, but inferred from the discussion.
Outcomes
The Upper Tribunal allowed the council's appeal.
The FTT wrongly applied section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 and misconstrued 'last known address' under section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972. The council had served the notice at Mr. Abdallah's last known address to the licensing department. However, the reasonable excuse defence was not considered by the FTT, so the matter was remitted to the FTT for that determination.