The service provisions of s233 of the Local Government Act 1972 apply to notices served under a statute by a local authority (including in the landlord and tenant context), not just to those notices served in fulfilment of a public duty.
In Birmingham City Council v Bravington [2023] EWCA Civ 308, the Court of Appeal considered whether s233 of the 1972 Act applied to a notice served under the Housing Act 1985, and concluded that it did.
Section 233 addresses a local authority’s service of notices, orders or documents required or authorised under any enactment. It states that a notice may be served on the person by leaving it at his proper address.
Birmingham City Council sought possession of 9 Clunbury Road, Northfield, which had been occupied by the defendant under a secure tenancy since 2018. Possession was sought on the basis that the defendant’s convictions meant that there was an absolute ground for possession under s84A of the Housing Act 1985.
Such possession proceedings could only be entertained if a notice had been served under s83ZA of the 1985 Act. A letter containing the notice relied upon had been handed to the defendant’s girlfriend at the property. The defendant subsequently denied that he saw the notice before the claim was served. Although neither the district judge nor the circuit judge accepted that there had been good service, the Court of Appeal was satisfied. Section 233 of the 1972 Act applied.
This was not contrary to Enfield London Borough Council v Devonish (1997) 29 HLR 691, as that concerned common law notices to quit and not notices served under statute. The address of 9 Clunbury Road was the proper address for the purposes of s233. In deciding whether the manner of delivering the notice was sufficient to be considered left at the property the test was as formulated in Lord Newborough v Jones [1975] 1 Ch 90 – namely, was it left “in a manner which a reasonable person, minded to bring the document to the attention of the person to whom it was addressed, would adopt”?
The notice had been served in accordance with s233 and the defendant was not permitted to dispute service on the basis that it did not reach him.
Elizabeth Haggerty is a barrister
