Serving 1954 Act Notices after Lamba v Enfield LBC

Services of legal and statutory notices (such as break notices or notices under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“LTA 1954”)) can be challenging and there are plenty of traps for the unwary.  The recent High Court case of Lamba v Enfield LBC [2025] is another reminder of this and explains why notices are often served by numerous methods, to all possible addresses to avoid a claim that service was ineffective. 

The case concerned service of a notice under section 25 of the LTA 1954 by Enfield Borough Council as landlord. The lease provided that section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“LTA 1925”) “shall” apply to service of all notices and documents. This is a well-known provision of the LTA 1925 which provides rules for serving notices related to property, deeming them valid if in writing and delivered to the last-known UK abode or business, or sent by registered post, even if not personally received, unless the postal service returns the letter undelivered.  The provision offers certainty in property transactions. It is quite common for a lease to incorporate section 196 either in its full form or adapted, as agreed between the parties.  However, the LTA 1954 makes its own provision for the service of business tenancy renewal notices as it incorporates section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927.  

This provides for similar methods of service but there are two key differences between section 23 and section 196: firstly, a notice served under section 23 is generally deemed served on the day that it is posted, whereas under section 196 it is deemed served when it would be delivered “in the ordinary course of post”; secondly,  under section 23, even if the letter is returned undelivered service is valid, whereas under section 196 if it is returned by the post office, service is invalid.

Essentially, under section 23, the risk of non-receipt is on the recipient, whereas with section 196 it stays with the sender (if returned).  In Lamba, the tenant argued that it never received the section 25 notice served by the Council by special delivery and by first class post. The former had been returned by the Post Office.  The only evidence of service by first class post was a copy of an undated envelope and the judge said he could not infer from this that the notice had also been served by first class post.  

The Council argued that section 23 ran in parallel to section 196 and that, under section 23, service was effective, even though the notice had been returned.  In an oral judgment given at the hearing (rather than reserved to a later date), the Judge said that because the provision in the lease regarding the service of notices said that s.196 “shall” apply, it was mandatory that it be followed and was the only valid method of service (irrespective of whether it was a statutory notice or a contractual pursuant to the terms of the lease) and that section 23 did not apply at the same time. As the section 25 notice had been returned to the Council, there had been no valid service. On the facts of this case, it meant that the landlord’s taking back of possession had been unlawful.   

Not all the details are known about this case but, in the absence of further clarity, it will be important to consider the notice provisions in leases to see if they are (i) mandatory or permissive and/or (ii) not applicable to statutory notices. In the event of any doubt, consider whether service by hand is the safest course.

Subscribe to our latest insights by topic here.