PDA

View Full Version : Answers to Question time (3)!



PaulF
09-07-2005, 23:00 PM
Well I did say you would need not only your wits, but a calendar; I think many of you didn’t realise the significance of this and as a result you fell into the trap! Also you need to know how Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 works. You should all have a clause within your AST referring to the act otherwise you would have to serve any Notice on the tenant personally i.e. in his hand, to be valid, so be warned!

Your AST should go on to say that any Notice will be sufficiently served if served by hand (this includes putting the notice through the letter box to the property – a communal letterbox or hallway will not be sufficient.), or sent by first-class post deemed to be delivered two working days later. If a notice is served by hand before 5 p.m., it is deemed to be delivered on the next working day; if served after 5 p.m. means it is deemed to be served after the next working day. A working day excludes Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.

So that you can see how service of most of the notices works.

Here then are the answers:-

1. Invalid. The notice was not deemed to be served until 3rd May (29th April is excluded by effluxion of time, 30th April, Saturday 1st May Sunday 2nd May Bank Holiday) So you get the picture.
2. Valid. It was served on the tenant personally so the Law of Property Act 1925 does not apply.
3. Invalid. It needs to be addressed to the tenants “in their own name”, but it would have been valid had it been as the time constraints deemed it to be served on 29th April.
4. Invalid on two counts; (A) time constraints as in (1) and (B) it was posted through a communal letterbox.
5. Invalid. 27th May was a Friday, and as it’s after 6p.m., therefore it is not deemed to be delivered until two working days later. What is 30th May? - a Bank Holiday, so it excludes 31st May anyway, so your notice was deemed to be served on 1st June – too late, I’m afraid.
6. Valid.
7. Invalid. 28th May is a Saturday. Even if the tenant signs to say he has received the notice on 31st May, the LPA 1925 states clearly that any notice sent by first-class post is deemed to be served two working days later; this therefore excludes 31st May so is deemed to be served on 1st June which is too late! Also the notice should say “after” 31st July but I did add a codicil to this at a later stage but it wouldn’t have altered the fact the notice was invalid.
8. There is no requirement to sign a Section 21 notice by anybody! Surprised? There is nothing in the Housing Act to say it has to be, and many solicitors still get it wrong.

So there you have it. Please feel free to paste these into a word document so you don’t make mistakes that can easily catch you out!

I haven't had time to see who got most questions right but I'm sure you can work it out for yourselves!

MrWoof
10-07-2005, 19:09 PM
Ouch! Thanks for the info Paul, much appreciated. My tenancy agreement is OK but I wasn't aware of the time/date significance.

lawstudent
10-07-2005, 22:56 PM
well done Paul f - an interesting and instructive exercise - you have surpassed yourself :)

Andy Parker
11-07-2005, 00:30 AM
The moral being avoid Bank Holidays when serving section 21 notices!

RichieP
11-07-2005, 08:20 AM
Agree, very interesting and informative.

Anyone have the exact wording of the clause for the tenancy?

oaktree
11-07-2005, 09:24 AM
Sneaky!! I missed the bank holiday on the 30th ... stupid calendar!!, that stopped me getting 5 & 7

I had always been under the impression that if a notice was served after 5.00pm - even if handed to the tenant directly - it still got treated as a next day service.

PaulF
11-07-2005, 14:54 PM
Agree, very interesting and informative.

Anyone have the exact wording of the clause for the tenancy?
You can more or less use the wording in the second paragraph of my posting as it's almost verbatim from the Act. It isn't important to use the exact wording, just that you inform the tenant in your AST as to its function.

RichieP
11-07-2005, 18:22 PM
Thanks Paul.

lawstudent
23-06-2006, 06:10 AM
you need to know how Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 works. You should all have a clause within your AST referring to the act otherwise you would have to serve any Notice on the tenant personally i.e. in his hand, to be valid, so be warned!
I don't see any need to refer to the Act in the AST. Nor do notices ever have to be be placed in the tenant's hand to be validly served. Where did you get these ideas? :confused:

RichieP
23-06-2006, 12:14 PM
Hey lawstudent, why not dig up a really old thread to score a point? :D

lawstudent
23-06-2006, 12:23 PM
I'm not trying to score a point - do you not think it is important that the users of this site get correct information?

pms
23-06-2006, 16:51 PM
I don't see any need to refer to the Act in the AST. Nor do notices ever have to be be placed in the tenant's hand to be validly served. Where did you get these ideas?

Lawstudent is correct the 1926 Act does not have to be refered to in an AST nor do notices have to be delivered by hand:confused:

PaulF
24-06-2006, 11:04 AM
The point about S.196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (not aware of any 1926 Act!) is that the tenant should be made aware as to how Notices might be served upon him otherwise he might easily be able to claim in court that he didn't know. Provided you include it within the AST then you can also serve Notices by Email or fax perfectly validly in addition to the normal recorded delivery/registered post method.

In the absence of any information in the AST as to how Notices will be served on the tenant, then you would have to serve one personally (put into his hand) to comply with S.196 because that would then be the only way you could be absolutely certain he had had one served upon him.

lawstudent
24-06-2006, 15:02 PM
Sorry, Paul f, you are wrong again. A Notice can be validly served under S196 even though it may never be seen by its intended recipient. One way a landlord can do it is to deliver it to the tenanted property (whether or not the tenant is there). This is very elementary and I am surprised that, as someone who runs courses that include the serving of notices, you do not know it.
Think of it like tennis: if you serve an ace correctly and get awarded the point (since we were talking about point-scoring before and Wimbledon is fast approaching) it will do your opponent no good bleating to the umpire, "You can't be serious - I never even saw the ball"
To paraphrase an old story, a Scottish tenant who never saw an important notice (although it had been correctly served under S196) went to court and said to a very English judge, "But Milud, I did'na ken". "Well", responded the judge, "Ye ken the noo"
:D

mole
24-06-2006, 18:41 PM
hi,
can i just ask what happens if notice is served over the xmas period?. in my situation notice was served on the 20/12/05 after 6 pm . just wondering if this was invalid? i thought it might be as there was so many holidays around that 2 month period what with christmas and new year that i think it is unfair because you cannot go out and look for somewhere then because everywhere is shut .
thanks

PaulF
24-06-2006, 20:09 PM
I'm more than happy to be corrected, but according to (I think!) Pain Smith for the avoidance of doubt information concerning how Notices are to be served on the tenant should be in there! I didn't make it up.

I also feel that there should be reference to S.196 in a tenancy agreement as it might be considered vital information that the tenant should be informed about under the unfair terms guidelines.

I'm only passing on what I understand to be the case. Also bright solicitors might be able to state a reasonable case on behalf of a tenant that the landlord or especially an agent is expected to have superior knowledge to that of a tenant who is after all the consumer, and would therefore not be automatically expected to know how Notices are going to be served unless told about it beforehand. That's all I'm trying to argue.

When training courses are being conducted I take the view that the more information that landlords provide to the tenant the more successful they will be. Let's face it if I got everything absolutely right all of the time I'd be a lucky blighter. I'm not legally trained nor do I pretend to be. My training courses always state that they are information workshops and as the demand is good then I will provide the service as long as people want them. I also know that people go away knowing a lot more than when they came, and most of it will be correct.

.

jinny
24-06-2006, 20:28 PM
My notice came through the door on Boxing Day,hand delivered, and on the envelope it said; HAND DELIVERED..On 26th December.
AND ...You can clearly see the date, i have kept it for future reference. So if what's being said on here is true, then that would invalidate the whole notice wouldn't it??

PaulF
24-06-2006, 20:39 PM
No! It wouldn't necessarily invalidate the notice per se. It would be likely to put the possesion date back to the end of the next rental period. When I say a Notice would be invalid, I should have said the Notice would not be valid on the date the landlord thought it would be effective! Sorry, it was badly worded but thanks for your post - it could easily have been misinterpreted!

jinny
24-06-2006, 21:08 PM
Right, thanks.
Just a bit of info for you...I took my LL to court regarding the NTQ, and it turns out that when we sold the house to the company (we rent back from them) the barrister told the company's solicitor that it HAD to be the actual LL's signiture on the NTQ. This came to light when i checked the date of the deeds etc, the company sold the property on within 2 weeks of buying it from us, so in effect, they do not own the house, as we signed the tenancy agreement on 24th June 05, the deeds did not change "hands" until 30th June 05. So basically, he was saying, whoever's name is on the deeds, is the one who has to sign the NTQ, so all in all, my NTQ was invalid, and my LL has not been in touch since, with anymore notices.

PaulF
24-06-2006, 21:28 PM
Jinny. If it's a residential tenancy then it is a Notice of Possession not a NTQ. There is also no requirement for it to be signed says Marveen Smith of Pain Smith as there's nothing in the Housing Act 1988 to say that it has to be signed.

If so, it looks as though the judge got it wrong and was pursuaded by the barrister. I think it probably had more to do with by whom it was served, not who was supposed to sign it! I suspect the right landlord did not serve the Notice.

PaulF
24-06-2006, 23:48 PM
Coming back to my post concerning service of Notices, the OFT Bulletin 21 clearly states that if the following clause is in a tenancy agreement "...........Provided that section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (as amended by the Recorded Delivery Act 1962) Services would apply to the service of notices".

It goes on to say "The OFT takes the view that such a provision unfairly prejudices the tenant because the statutory provisions referred to are relatively onerous. The OFT considers that the common law position regarding the service of notices provides sufficient protection for the landlord without the risk of unfairness."

That to my mind means you should spell it out to the tenant if you want to make sure they are supposed to know what to expect concerning Notices served on them. The S.48 Notice should provide as to how Notices should be served by the tenant upon the landlord although I appreciate the above Act also applies, but it appears the information needs to be more detailed and in plain English.

No doubt you might be able to shed some more illumination on this!

pms
25-06-2006, 00:29 AM
I'm more than happy to be corrected, but according to (I think!) Pain Smith for the avoidance of doubt information concerning how Notices are to be served on the tenant should be in there! I didn't make it up.

I also feel that there should be reference to S.196 in a tenancy agreement as it might be considered vital information that the tenant should be informed about under the unfair terms guidelines.

I'm only passing on what I understand to be the case. Also bright solicitors might be able to state a reasonable case on behalf of a tenant that the landlord or especially an agent is expected to have superior knowledge to that of a tenant who is after all the consumer, and would therefore not be automatically expected to know how Notices are going to be served unless told about it beforehand. That's all I'm trying to argue.

When training courses are being conducted I take the view that the more information that landlords provide to the tenant the more successful they will be. Let's face it if I got everything absolutely right all of the time I'd be a lucky blighter. I'm not legally trained nor do I pretend to be. My training courses always state that they are information workshops and as the demand is good then I will provide the service as long as people want them. I also know that people go away knowing a lot more than when they came, and most of it will be correct.

. Paul I suggest you read up on case history before you post again.Some of this advice your giving is totally misleading.

lawstudent
25-06-2006, 07:34 AM
Coming back to my post concerning service of Notices, the OFT Bulletin 21 clearly states that if the following clause is in a tenancy agreement "...........Provided that section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (as amended by the Recorded Delivery Act 1962) Services would apply to the service of notices".

It goes on to say "The OFT takes the view that such a provision unfairly prejudices the tenant because the statutory provisions referred to are relatively onerous. The OFT considers that the common law position regarding the service of notices provides sufficient protection for the landlord without the risk of unfairness."

That to my mind means you should spell it out to the tenant if you want to make sure they are supposed to know what to expect concerning Notices served on them. The S.48 Notice should provide as to how Notices should be served by the tenant upon the landlord although I appreciate the above Act also applies, but it appears the information needs to be more detailed and in plain English.

No doubt you might be able to shed some more illumination on this!
Paul, you seem to be getting more and more confused. And the way you express yourself is getting more and more confusing. I am beginning to wonder if you are really John Prescott :D

In an earlier post you said that ASTs should contain a reference to the provisions of S196. Then it became clear that you did not understand the provisions of S196. And now you refer to a bulletin in which the OFT gives its view that contracts should NOT rely on the provisions of S196.

What are you trying to say?

PaulF
25-06-2006, 21:21 PM
I don't think for a minute I'm confused, and yes I did refer to the provisions of the Act in that they would of course apply to the service of Notices, but it's apparently clear from OFT guidelines that mere reference to S.196 in itself is not nearly enough. They want to see that you have told the tenant how Notices are to be served under that Act.

pms refers to case law, but case law is only a guide and is not necessarily going to win you a court case. My advice is not misleading and many lawyers a lot cleverer than you and me make a living out of protecting their client tenant in being able to put forward a strong case. As you know the unfair terms can only be decided by a court as to whether they feel a term might be unfair on one part or another.

lawstudent
26-06-2006, 04:19 AM
I don't think for a minute I'm confused, and yes I did refer to the provisions of the Act in that they would of course apply to the service of Notices, but it's apparently clear from OFT guidelines that mere reference to S.196 in itself is not nearly enough.
Paul f - Reading your latest post the words "back" and "pedal" spring to mind :D You may not think you are confused (confused people often don't) but you still haven't read (or understood) what the OFT said, which was not that reference to S196 was "not enough" but that it was too onerous. By the way you were also wrong in what you said about "effluxion of time". Perhaps you should refrain from setting quizzes dealing with legal matters until you know a little more about them.

PaulF
26-06-2006, 18:10 PM
Nobody else tries to set any quiz questions and anyway it appears to be popular with quite a few who haven't exactly been harmed. Read my disclaimer at the end of each post because as I've said I'm not infallible and don't pretend to have any legal training, and always invite posters to consult a solicitor. If any of my answers are incorrect in some aspect, then you have the opportunity to correct me, but as you haven't told anybody your background we don't know where you come from, so how do I know you are right anyway? I do respect your opinions as they are good.

If you want to hide behind a pseudonym fine! People know who I am and where I live!

My time appears to have effluxed, so I shall flux off permanently from this thread.

lawstudent
04-07-2006, 06:28 AM
Paul - Your quizzes are indeed fascinating, and people take what you say seriously because you give a lot of good advice, you promote yourself as a bit of a guru regardless of your disclaimer and you use impressive words like "effluxion" ... so it is all the more important that we get the right answers.

I am a law student and I don't run courses - so nobody needs to know my real identity.

To get back to notices, you said, "If a notice is served by hand before 5 p.m., it is deemed to be delivered on the next working day; if served after 5 p.m. means it is deemed to be served after the next working day". Is this really true? Is it in some Act? If you or anyone else has the answer to this I would be very interested to know it.

Rooftile
04-07-2006, 08:53 AM
Paul f,

In relation to question 1, of question time 3 - can you clarify/explain the phrase ‘effluxion of time' and as such, why Friday 29th April was excluded due to this?

Iron Mike
04-07-2006, 16:18 PM
To get back to notices, you said, "If a notice is served by hand before 5 p.m., it is deemed to be delivered on the next working day; if served after 5 p.m. means it is deemed to be served after the next working day". Is this really true? Is it in some Act? If you or anyone else has the answer to this I would be very interested to know it.

From Painsmith
There have been a number of recent updates to the Civil Procedure Rules and to some of the forms the Courts are using. Key updates for Landlord and Tenant professionals are itemised below.

Forms:
The N215 Certificate of Service and the N5B Claim Form for Accelerated Possession Proceedings have been modified and the new versions should be used immediately. Updated versions can be downloaded from the Courts Service website at www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk.

Civil Procedure Rules:
The Rules have been amended to allow for service of documents using alternatives to the Royal Mail provided they offer a next working day delivery service. However, few of the current alternative services offer this as they use the Royal Mail to provide the actual doorstep delivery service so this is unlikely to cause any changes at this time. The other key change is that the Court is demanding that any communication regarding a possession matter must include the full postcode for the premises. Most agents should not find this too onerous. Finally, a procedure by which the vast majority of hearings that do not involve the final disposal of a matter will be heard by telephone has been piloted in a few Courts in Northern England. As this has proven successful it is to be introduced nationwide in a phased deployment over the course of this year.

lawstudent
05-07-2006, 05:56 AM
Interesting, Iron Mike, but none of this is relevant to the question under consideration, which is about the service of notices by hand

pms
05-07-2006, 21:41 PM
Interesting, Iron Mike, but none of this is relevant to the question under consideration, which is about the service of notices by hand

Im not being stupid or missing the plot here but if notice is served before 5pm on a particular day how can it be deemed to be delivered the next day.:confused:

lawstudent
06-07-2006, 06:14 AM
No, pms, you do not seem to be stupid or missing the plot, but I cannot help feeling that somebody is. Anyway, since the author of these interesting views appears to be absent for the time being (running courses on advanced effluxion?) we may have to wait for enlightenment
_________________
Disclaimer: I am only a humble law student and what I say is either right or wrong - it may be advisable to obtain the advice of a solicitor, but solicitors can be right or wrong too, so when they say I am right I might be wrong and when they say I am wrong I might be right :D

lawstudent
10-07-2006, 10:43 AM
Hi Paul. Nice to have you back. You started something with your quiz! Now how about finishing it?

pms
11-07-2006, 22:20 PM
Hi Paul. Nice to have you back. You started something with your quiz! Now how about finishing it?

Yeah! Paul how about finishing the quiz or starting a new one:D

PaulF
12-07-2006, 08:53 AM
The "working day" is deemed to be 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. Monday to Friday (excluding Bank Holidays).

If you hand deliver a Notice before 5.00 p.m. even though it is to a private residence and nothing to do with the workplace, the tenant would have to have been given reasonable time to receive such a Notice. As the working day ends at 5.00 p.m. and the tenant might not actually collect it until afterwards then it is deemed to be served the next working day even though it was established that it was actually delivered within that working day.

If Notices are delivered after 5.00 p.m. the working day has ended so as service must be on a "working day" service would then take effect the next working day and deemed to be effective the day after that. Remember the tenant has to be give 24 hours written Notice of the landlord wanting to do something so I suspect this has something to do with it too concerning the effective date of service.

All this information is from Marveen Smith on the Pain Smith website although I don't think the full explanation as above has been included. The explanation is mine and you can dispute the reasoning, but the facts of the requirement of service are very much correct!

pippay
12-07-2006, 09:20 AM
Makes perfect sense to me ..


The explanation is mine and you can dispute the reasoning, but the facts of the requirement of service are very much correct!

lawstudent
12-07-2006, 09:43 AM
If you hand deliver a Notice before 5.00 p.m. even though it is to a private residence and nothing to do with the workplace, the tenant would have to have been given reasonable time to receive such a Notice. As the working day ends at 5.00 p.m. and the tenant might not actually collect it until afterwards then it is deemed to be served the next working day even though it was established that it was actually delivered within that working day ...
All this information is from Marveen Smith on the Pain Smith website. The explanation is mine and you can dispute the reasoning, but the facts of the requirement of service are very much correct!
Accepting that a tenant needs a "reasonable time" before the end of the working day to receive a notice, and accepting that if you deliver a notice at 4.59 pm that is not the case, and so the notice will be deemed to have been delivered the following working day, then what is the difference if you deliver the notice at 6 pm? In both cases the recipient is deemed not to have had enough time on the day of delivery, and in both cases he has the entire following day. Or looking at it differently, suppose you deliver a notice at 8.59 am on a working day, will not the recipient have a "reasonable time" before the end of that day? He has after all got the whole of it. How much more of it could he have? The law is often illogical but I have never known it to be as illogical as your "explanation" suggests.
Can you provide the reference to the website where you obtained this information?

pms
12-07-2006, 15:25 PM
I agree with Lawstudent. What is deemed as a reasonable time.I hand delivered an access letter this morning at 10.45 am so as far as I'm concerned and this has been verified by the instructing lawyer that notice is deemed to have been served.

lawstudent
20-07-2006, 06:46 AM
Paul - wot, still no reference for your strange opinion? :D

pippay
20-07-2006, 08:14 AM
Am I missing the plot here ? Your argument, IMHO, is clutching at some very fine straws. It's obviously a much debated subject that still has no resolution or agreement on this forum.


Or looking at it differently, suppose you deliver a notice at 8.59 am on a working day, will not the recipient have a "reasonable time" before the end of that day? He has after all got the whole of it. Surely not, if he's at "work" and that does seem to be the operative word in this thread ... ?? Most people who work leave home well before 8.59am and very often don't get home till 6 at the earliest. When I was working, I left home often before 7am and didn't return after 7pm How much more of it could he have? I get the impression you're not working at the moment or you wouldn't have said this. The law is often illogical but I have never known it to be as illogical as your "explanation" suggests.
Can you provide the reference to the website where you obtained this information?

Worldlife
20-07-2006, 08:45 AM
The Law is an ass! Edit or maybe it is the way the law is being interpreted or misintepreted that makes it seem so!!!

In all my work over a period of some 40 years with a local authority a statutory notice was regarded as served when it was affixed to the property, placed through the letterbox or handed directly to the person/s named on the notice. The notice was usually served on a working day and our working days (and sometimes nights) included Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. Most notices were served between Monday and Friday,

The time and date the recipient actually viewed the notice was not considered relevant.

Maybe we need some case law and direct quotations from the relevant legislation to support the differences between the opinions of PMS and Paul_f on this issue.

It is suggested here the notice is potentially invalid because a person may be at work, Shift workers could be in a worse position than daytime workers under these ad hoc rules. Why not ban the service of notices between June, July and August because people may be on holiday? Maybe ban notices of the Christmas period too!

The worst perpetrators of possible injustice are the Courts. In my recent case they sent out by ordinary first class post a notice requiring the defendant to submit key information within 7 days otherwise the Court would find in my favour. The postal service is not 100% reliable or the defendant could have been on holiday.

How would you feel if you had a County Court Judgement against you as a result of failures of the postal services?

pms
20-07-2006, 08:55 AM
Worldlife: You have just hit the nail on the head.:)

pippay
20-07-2006, 09:25 AM
Where legislation falls down is that is doesn't make it clear what a "working day" is and that case law, that subsequently determines this, isn't widely available to Mr Joe Public, the people it most affects, to clarify - unfortunately, it is very much a case of everyone's "take" on it, including the legal profession, dare I say it!

And I'm thinking that protracted debates on issues as unclear as this, on this type of forum, can often muddy the waters even further.

I'm new to seeing it from the LL's perspective and much of intricacies of the law surrounding it, but personally if I were a LL, I would be approach it very cautiously by going with the Monday to Friday contention thus hedging my bets. Whilst I can see and understand the logic on both sides, I wouldn't rely on either argument, on a subject that is so strongly debated on here.

But that's just me .. I'm a cautious person :)

lawstudent
20-07-2006, 10:36 AM
I have to say I do find it infuriating when people like paul_f set themselves up as some kind of authority (disclaimers notwithstanding) by playing at quizmaster, then coming out with implausible answers which they fail to justify.

Presumably paul is currently running one of his famous courses where he charges people for the privilege of drinking from the fountain of his expertise.

pippay
20-07-2006, 10:47 AM
Lawstudent, I think that can be applied to anyone on here !

Certainly I agree with you that a "Question time" should have appropriately substantiated answers and not rely on mere opinion, even if the source of the opinion is that of a third party solicitor - even they have been known to get it wrong too !!

pms
20-07-2006, 13:00 PM
For the avoidence of doubt my learned friends

Summary of Statutory Provisions regarding Notices

Section 196 Law of Property Act 1925: Any notice required or authorised to be served by this Act shall be sufficiently served if it is sent by post in a registered letter … at the last known place of abode or business and if that letter is not returned through the post undelivered and service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

Section 23 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927: Any notice under this Act shall be in writing and may be served on the person by sending it through the post in a registered letter addressed to the last known place of abode in England and Wales.

Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978 Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, then unless the contrary indication appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post

M'luds I rest my case :)

pippay
20-07-2006, 13:24 PM
On a light hearted note, pms, we are talking Royal mail here, so what could one expect to be classed as ordinary? :)

pms
20-07-2006, 15:42 PM
This is section 196 Law of Property Act(1925) in its entirity.Nowhere does it imply what the working week is and please note the last sentence.To stop any further confusion on this forum Paul F please look up the fact's before posting and I say that in a polite way.Perhaps my learned friends Lawstudent,pippay and Worldlife would like to comment.:D


196. Regulations respecting notices.- (1) Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing.

(2) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served on a lessee or mortgagor shall be sufficient, although only addressed to the lessee or mortgagor by that designation, without his name, or generally to the persons interested, without any name, and notwithstanding that any person to be effected by the notice is absent, under disability, unborn, or unascertained.

(3) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine.

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned through the post-office undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

(5) The provisions of this section shall extend to notices required to be served by any instrument affecting property executed or coming into operation after the commencement of this Act unless a contrary intention appears.

This section does not apply to notices served in proceedings in the court

pippay
20-07-2006, 16:12 PM
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing! This is merely an observation only, pms .. this Act is 80 years old. Do you think that perhaps there is a chance, albeit a small one, that there have since been court rulings that may have clarified it even further and in doing so have become part of legislation? .. possibly, maybe ? :)

Worldlife
20-07-2006, 19:53 PM
Unfortunately Royal Mail no longer offer a 'registered delivery' service. The current services are either recorded delivery or special delivery.

When I was working we gave up sending registered or recorded delivery notices to our known villains. They just didn't accept service of them or didn't collect them from the Post Office.

Do I recall correctly the law has changed (or there is case law) that if a recorded delivery letter is sent and not collected, or even returned to the sender by Royal Mail, that notice is regarded as having been served?

What would be the reaction of a Judge if the defendant asks for proof of delivery and the claimant is undable to provide such proof? Presumably the claimant will be obliged to file as evidence the envelope of the returned notice that is overwritten with the postal service reasons for non-delivery.

Worldlife
20-07-2006, 20:00 PM
I see that the answer to one of my questions has been given by PMS in another thread


Service by recorded delivery is deemed regardless of actual delivery WX Investments Ltd v Begg (Fraser, Part 20 defendant (2002) EWHC 925 (Ch); (2002) 1 WLR 2849 A business lease incorporated s.196(4) Law of Property Act 1925 (as amended by s.1(1) Recorded Delivery Service Act 1962), which provides that notices under the lease are sufficiently served if sent by the recorded delivery service. Patten J, dismissing the landlord’s appeal, held that s.196(4) does not merely provide for service by recorded delivery at the time at which delivery is actually effected. The words "and that service shall be deemed" introduced a presumed date of delivery regardless of when, or if, delivery actually took place. Service of the tenant’s counter-notice to the landlord’s notice specifying an increase in the annual rent was deemed to have occurred on the first occasion on which the Post Office attempted to deliver it. This was notwithstanding the fact that the landlord did not actually receive it until several days later, by which time the period for service of the counter-notice had expired.

See Post 67 - Small Section 21 query (http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=19325#post19325)

pippay
20-07-2006, 20:05 PM
Hence my suggestion in the other thread to limit the debate to one thread, to avoid confusion and repetition :D

N.B I've got my smilies back somehow, Worldlife !!


I see that the answer to one of my questions has been given by PMS in another thread

lawstudent
21-07-2006, 05:19 AM
This is section 196 Law of Property Act(1925) in its entirity.Nowhere does it imply what the working week is and please note the last sentence.To stop any further confusion on this forum Paul F please look up the fact's before posting and I say that in a polite way.Perhaps my learned friends Lawstudent,pippay and Worldlife would like to comment.:D
Thanks for this, pms, but I think the definition of the working week is sufficiently established in common law as to mean Monday to Friday. But there is nothing in this Act or in common law to support paul-f's strange contention, which implies that a notice delivered by hand on a Monday at 6pm would not be deemed to have been served until the following Wednesday (assuming no bank holidays)

Worldlife's post above does raise an interesting question: why should a notice delivered by post be deemed to have served on the first day the postman tried to deliver it, while a notice actually delivered by hand not be deemed to be served until two days later?

lawstudent
05-08-2006, 04:20 AM
Worldlife's post above does raise an interesting question: why should a notice delivered by post be deemed to have served on the first day the postman tried to deliver it, while a notice actually delivered by hand not be deemed to be served until two days later?
can anyone answer this?

PaulF
10-08-2006, 20:38 PM
Look! This is not me being weird! This information can be checked with Pain Smith solicitors which is where it all comes from. Marveen Smith is an expert in these matters and she hasn't just plucked them out of the sky! Go on one of her courses and you can get it from her chapter & verse where all will be explained. Before you shoot the messenger that is, try and take it on board!

lawstudent
11-08-2006, 08:32 AM
Look! This is not me being weird! ... Marveen Smith is an expert ... Go on one of her courses and you can get it from her
Have you been on the relevant course?

PaulF
11-08-2006, 11:36 AM
Err.....I shouldn't really have to dignify it with an answer, but suffice to say that I regularly go on courses and have attended at least 5 within the last 9 months, two of which were conducted by the aforesaid person. Is that okay?

lawstudent
14-08-2006, 14:30 PM
I regularly go on courses and have attended at least 5 within the last 9 months, two of which were conducted by the aforesaid person. Is that okay?
Well, it's not OK if you can't remember what she said.

PaulF
16-08-2006, 07:49 AM
I can remember quite clearly, and anyway I have the notes that are provided by her at all her seminars If you weren't there, then put a sock in it will you?

lawstudent
16-08-2006, 10:51 AM
I'm sure Ms Smith will be delighted that you are promoting her courses here, but that is not the purpose of this forum. If you can remember the authority she gave for this opinion then how about sharing it with us?

observer
16-08-2006, 19:33 PM
Perhaps i can shed some light on the delivery of notices and the rules pertaining to them. if you care to look at form N215 of the HMCS website you will clearly see some of the rules (but not all) for the delivery of notices (i apolgise for not being able to give you the link!!)
one thinks this spat may come to an end !!:D

PaulF
16-08-2006, 20:28 PM
I'm sure Ms Smith will be delighted that you are promoting her courses here, but that is not the purpose of this forum. If you can remember the authority she gave for this opinion then how about sharing it with us?E-mail her yourself at marveen@painsmith.co.uk I've got other matters to deal with!

Worldlife
16-08-2006, 22:09 PM
Perhaps i can shed some light on the delivery of notices and the rules pertaining to them. if you care to look at form N215 of the HMCS website you will clearly see some of the rules (but not all) for the delivery of notices (i apolgise for not being able to give you the link!!)
one thinks this spat may come to an end !!:D

If you have too much trouble reading my snapshot Download the PDF file from this link (www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n215_0106.pdf)

In other forums using vBulletin if one clicks on the image it is enlarged to at least twice the thumbnail size.... in this case it would have been just about legible!

lawstudent
17-08-2006, 06:06 AM
Thanks Worldlife and observer. At last we have the right answer. The correct URL by the way is www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n215_0106.pdf

(We haven't seen a very good advert here for Marveen Smith's courses, but it might not be her fault. Some students have brains that get estopped by the effluxion of time)

pms
17-08-2006, 22:58 PM
(We haven't seen a very good advert here for Marveen Smith's courses, but it might not be her fault. Some students have brains that get estopped by the effluxion of time)

Im wondering if Marveen Smith actually exists or have I been estopped by the effluxion of time:D