Newcastle City Council v Mahmoud Abdallah

Section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 applies to a local housing authority’s request for information required by conditions attached to a statutory licence. Ordinary-post service at the recipient’s last known address is valid even if the document is never received. The relevant knowledge is ordinarily that of the department responsible for the statutory function, rather than every department of the council. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 does not undo deemed service because of non-receipt, although proof of non-delivery may matter where a statutory time limit depends on delivery. A separate reasonable-excuse defence may nevertheless remain available.

Newcastle City Council imposed a financial penalty on a landlord for failing to provide information required by conditions of a selective housing licence. The Council had posted its demands to the address given in the licence application, although the landlord had later moved and the council tax department knew his new address.

The First-tier Tribunal accepted that the demands had not been received and cancelled the penalty. It held that the landlord’s later address, known to another council department, was his last known address. The Council appealed on the applicability of section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, the meaning of last known address, and the effect of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978.

1. Appeal allowed. The FTT had correctly abandoned its original view that section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 could not apply to a discretionary request under a licence condition. The provision applied because the licensing regime and the relevant mandatory conditions were authorised or required by the Housing Act 2004.
2. The landlord’s relevant last known address was the address known to the Council’s licensing team. Responsibility for selective licensing lay with the local housing authority acting in that capacity. The licensing team was entitled to rely on the address in the licence application and the licence condition requiring notification of changes of address. It was not required to search the council tax department’s records. The FTT had therefore erred in treating the address known to the council tax department as determinative.
3. Section 233 deemed the demands to have been validly served when posted by ordinary post to the proper address, irrespective of whether they came to the landlord’s attention. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 did not permit the landlord to establish that he had never received the documents in order to negate service. However, proof of non-delivery could be relevant where a statutory procedural step had to be taken within a period calculated by reference to delivery.
4. The question whether the landlord had a reasonable excuse remained undecided. His non-receipt was relevant, but his failure to notify the licensing team of his change of address distinguished the case from Tabassam v Manchester City Council [2024] UKUT 93 (LC). The issue was finely balanced and should be considered by the FTT if the Council requested remission within 21 days. Otherwise, the parties would be treated as having agreed that there was a reasonable excuse or that no penalty was appropriate.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): the appeal from the reviewed FTT decision was allowed. The FTT’s conclusion on last known address and service was set aside. The matter was to be remitted only if the Council requested remission within 21 days.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): the landlord’s appeal against the £654.66 financial penalty was allowed in decisions first promulgated on 9 August 2023 and reissued with revised reasons on 10 September 2023.