Email as sufficient notice to leave tenancy?

girl_withno_name

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

If your rental periods start on the 28th of the month then your written notice should have reached them BEFORE the 28th.

Text messages, emails or personal messages via Facebook are not adequate. You might be able to prove that they were sent but you cannot prove they were received or even read.

Does the same not apply for letters? You might be able to prove that they were sent, but they could get lost in the post, get delivered to the wrong address, they might not have had enough postage and be sat in the collection office, they might remain unread on doormats or in in-trays...


P.S. Ruggedtoast - years ago the UK postal system was considered corrupt, things change!

Flibsey

It is a very grey area and could go either way

legally speaking, the only proof of reciept is a proof of sending (by post).

G_M

Flibsey wrote: »

legally speaking, the only proof of reciept is a proof of sending (by post).

Not strictly true, but a fair point.

A witness to the Notice being handed to the recipient would, 'legally speaking', be considered proof of receipt too.

Werdnal

girl_withno_name wrote: »

Does the same not apply for letters? You might be able to prove that they were sent, but they could get lost in the post, get delivered to the wrong address, they might not have had enough postage and be sat in the collection office, they might remain unread on doormats or in in-trays...

That is why it is considered a wise precaution to send 2 separate copies via 2 different post offices, and retain the 2 free proofs of postage. Loss or mis-delivery of 1 item from 1 PO is possible; of 2 items from totally different POs is unlikely. Asking for proof of posting means you have to take the letter to the counter - hence ruling out the insufficient postage being paid, as clerk will check and weigh it before accepting it and issuing the receipt.

Should the PO deliver to the wrong address, that is not the tenant's fault - proof of posting first class is accepted as the items having been delivered 2 working days later.

As for sitting on desks or intrays - serving the notice means it is sent to the destination address - the fact that no-one has been arsed to read it is again, not the tenants fault, as they have complied with the requirements to serve the notice. The lack of anyone reading it could equally apply if the tenant hand delivered and is therefore beyond their control.

Same works the other way if the LL was giving notice to the tenant. If tenant is away and does not receive the letter until the day before expiry of the notice, so long as the LL has proof it was posted and therefore deemed served, that is all that is usually required by a court.

girl_withno_name

And why can similar arguments not be applied for delivery via email?

Werdnal wrote: »

As for sitting on desks or intrays - serving the notice means it is sent to the destination address - the fact that no-one has been arsed to read it is again, not the tenants fault, as they have complied with the requirements to serve the notice. The lack of anyone reading it could equally apply if the tenant hand delivered and is therefore beyond their control.

The bold above also contradicts the earlier argument (not yours admittedly) of emails not being adequate as you can prove that they were sent but you cannot prove they were received or read... from the above, as long as they were sent to the destination address (hypothetically an email address) then the tenant's requirements could be fulfilled and if noone picks up the emails or reads them, this isn't the tenant's problem.

Werdnal

girl_withno_name wrote: »

And why can similar arguments not be applied for delivery via email?



The bold above also contradicts the earlier argument (not yours admittedly) of emails not being adequate as you can prove that they were sent but you cannot prove they were received or read... from the above, as long as they were sent to the destination address (hypothetically an email address) then the tenant's requirements could be fulfilled and if noone picks up the emails or reads them, this isn't the tenant's problem.

Even in this day and age, the internet is a fickle mistress!

Emails do go astray, power failures can effect delivery, PC's crash, etc. Emails can even go into trash/spam folders and be zapped into oblivion at the end of the working day, never having seen the light. If an email is undelivered, it can take some time circulating on a "re-sending" route, before the delivery failure note arrives in the sender's inbox (if at all), which with something as time sensitive as notice, could be a disaster.

Employing the services of a 3rd party, proven delivery route, ie Royal Mail, rules out some of these uncertainties. That is not saying that emails are not acceptable by some LA/LLs, but should there be a dispute about when or if notice arrived, there is more room for doubt with email.

G_M

girl_withno_name wrote: »

And why can similar arguments not be applied for delivery via email?



The bold above also contradicts the earlier argument (not yours admittedly) of emails not being adequate as you can prove that they were sent but you cannot prove they were received or read... from the above, as long as they were sent to the destination address (hypothetically an email address) then the tenant's requirements could be fulfilled and if noone picks up the emails or reads them, this isn't the tenant's problem.

See post 4 above!

The law (Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 ) says a LL must provide a postal address for the Serving of Notices - so that is what the tenant should use!

Once the Notice is delivered to that address (whether by hand or by post) it is legally 'served'. Whether the recipient reads it is, as Werdnal says, beyond the sender's control, and legally irrelevant.

DVardysShadow

Fett132 wrote: »

Wow ruggedtoast you have some serious issues. It was actually the letting agent that requested the email to be sent and I have sent it by post also, so you will just have to read the actual post before commenting next time maybe?

Don't be so daft.

You started a poll and invited comments. So no grounds really to complain about posts you disagree with. ruggedtoast's comments can equally be construed as criticism of the LA in the light of your post.

Perhaps if you do another poll, try sticking to just 1 option if that is the answer you want?

girl_withno_name

G_M wrote: »

See post 4 above!

The law (Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 ) says a LL must provide a postal address for the Serving of Notices - so that is what the tenant should use!

Once the Notice is delivered to that address (whether by hand or by post) it is legally 'served'. Whether the recipient reads it is, as Werdnal says, beyond the sender's control, and legally irrelevant.

And I query whether this methodology may not be about 25 years out-dated by now... and why email could not, in the age of modern technology, be introduced as a perfectly acceptable form of communication.

PaulLuke

Whilst I agree that moving forward with technology is a good idea, unless you are able to amend the LTA 1987 then, whatever you or I think is irrelevant.

In court proceedings, the court will ask themselves was notice served correctly according to the legislation. Given the act refers to providing a postal address for the service of notices and there are rules which deem letters to be received a set time after posting I'd stick to post as, without server logs etc, I doubt you'd be able to satisfy a court that a particular email was received.