Notice via Recorded Delivery

j45p41

Hi,

I am in dispute with my landlord who are a large property owner. They have billed me for major works after 5 years. They claim to have issued a section 20b notice which I didnt receive. It says in my lease that notices must be issued by recorded delivery.

If the matter went to court would the landlord be required to show proof of the recorded delivery / signature when the letter was delivered? if they cant produce this do they still have a case?

Thanks in advance!

theartfullodger

Depends on the EXACT wording of the lease & the judge.

j45p41

Hi Thanks for the quick reply.

Here is the wording:

"ANY notice to be given by either party to the other under this lease shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been sufficiently served if sent by Recorded Delivery service and the case of a notice by the Landlord to the Tenant addressed to the Tennant at the Demised Premises and in the case of notice by the Tenant to the Landlord addressed to the Chief Executive of the Landlord at XXXX Road, XXXX, XXX or other principle office for the time of being of the Landlord."

It has not gone to court yet but do you think I am in my rights to ask for proof of the delivery? if they dont reply then what are the chances of success in court? (I know its hard to say - just want to know if its worth the pursuit).

davidmcn

That doesn't mean service has to be by recorded delivery, just that if they send by recorded delivery it will be deemed to have been served.

And that means just sent, not necessarily delivered to you. If they use a different method they will (probably) have to prove that it was actually received by you.

j45p41

Ah ok. So then how can they prove that it was received by me? I guess they could do something like send two letters and have each witnessed by the post office, but these guys own hundreds of flats. So what would you imagine their defense could be if I claim that I never received the notice? (which I didnt)

Voyager2002

Usual court practice is to deem notice to have been served if the person can produce proof of posting. So if they really did send something to you then you are unlikely to get very far in your defence.

I notice that the extract you quote from the contract refers to sending a notice to a "demised premises". Not sure what this means, but if they send something to an address that you have left, knowing that this is no longer your address, then it is unlikely that a court would regard it as having been "served".

Since debts only become statute-barred after SIX years, I fear that even if you could demonstrate that notice was not validly served they could still chase you for the money.

AnotherJoe

j45p41 wrote: »

Ah ok. So then how can they prove that it was received by me? I guess they could do something like send two letters and have each witnessed by the post office, but these guys own hundreds of flats. So what would you imagine their defense could be if I claim that I never received the notice? (which I didnt)

They dont have to. If sent by RD they just have to prove it was sent.

00ec25

Voyager2002 wrote: »

I notice that the extract you quote from the contract refers to sending a notice to a "demised premises". Not sure what this means, but if they send something to an address that you have left, knowing that this is no longer your address, then it is unlikely that a court would regard it as having been "served"..

perfectly obvious what that means - it is sent to the address at which the tenant has a tenancy and is patently a shorthand way of producing a document which does not need an actual individual address inserted every time someone uses that document template

on the basis the only known contact address of the tenant is the property they rent, no court would argue about service if sent to that address. You are misinformed if you think otherwise

j45p41

Thanks you both for clarifying. so here is an update on what has happened:

1. I cited the need for recorded delivery in the contract and asked for proof. The landlord (who are a large housing provider) stated that they would respond to my queries within 21 days. It has now been three weeks after the expiry of this period and they have not been able to produce evidence. Can I impose a time limit before their claim for payment is no longer valid?
2. The housing company send letters for service charges to my correspondence address (which I always receive), which is different to the property address. In the event that they do produce the evidence (which I am sure does not exist) and it shows that they sent the section 20B notice to the property address - would the notice be regarded as sufficiently served?

Thanks again!

davidmcn

j45p41 wrote: »

Can I impose a time limit before their claim for payment is no longer valid?

No. Either it's valid or it isn't.

In the event that they do produce the evidence (which I am sure does not exist) and it shows that they sent the section 20B notice to the property address - would that the notice be regarded as sufficiently served?

Yes, because the clause you quoted says it will be deemed to be served if "addressed to the Tenant at the Demised Premises".

parkrunner

Was there work that was actually carried out?