Naila Tabassam v Manchester City Council

An improvement notice may be correctly served at the owner’s last known address, including the address for service recorded at HM Land Registry. Correct service does not necessarily give the recipient deemed knowledge of the notice.

Where a landlord genuinely did not receive the notice, did not deliberately evade service, and could readily have been found from the authority’s records, failure to update the registered address may constitute a reasonable excuse under section 30(5) of the Housing Act 2004. The tribunal must assess the defence objectively and in the circumstances of the individual case.

Manchester City Council imposed a financial penalty on Naila Tabassam for failing to comply with an improvement notice concerning her rented property. The First-tier Tribunal found that the notice had been validly served at the address recorded for service at HM Land Registry and that the offence under section 30 of the Housing Act 2004 had been committed. It rejected reasonable excuse and imposed a penalty of £15,000.

On appeal, the Upper Tribunal considered whether service was valid and, if so, whether the appellant’s failure to receive the notice and failure to update her registered address could amount to a reasonable excuse.

1. The appeal succeeded. The First-tier Tribunal’s decision was set aside, and the Upper Tribunal substituted a decision that no offence had been committed and no financial penalty was payable.

2. The notices were correctly served. Section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 permits service by delivery, leaving the document at the person’s proper address, or post to that address. The proper address is the person’s last known address. Following Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v Tanna [2017] EWCA Civ 50, where title is registered, reasonable inquiries ordinarily extend no further than checking the proprietorship register for the registered proprietor’s address for service. The authority had done what was required.

3. Correct service established the elements of the offence under section 30, but it did not establish that the appellant had knowledge of the notice. The defence of reasonable excuse under section 30(5) remained available and was to be decided on the civil standard of proof.

4. The First-tier Tribunal had treated the failure to update the address as automatically excluding reasonable excuse. That was wrong and irrational. The evidence showed that the appellant had not deliberately avoided service, was registered for council tax at her home address, and could readily be found when the authority checked its records. Her failure to update the HM Land Registry address was a technical error, not wrongdoing warranting criminal culpability.

5. The circumstances were materially different from cases concerning landlords who claimed ignorance of a licensing requirement, including IR Management Ltd v Salford City Council [2020] UKUT 81 (LC). The approach to reasonable excuse discussed in Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC) supported an objective assessment of whether ignorance was reasonable for the particular person in the circumstances and for how long.

6. Authorities and tribunals may distinguish deliberate evasion from an innocent failure to update address details. Where a series of communications goes unanswered, a modest further check may be appropriate, although authorities are not required to search all their records.

• Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber): appeal allowed; the First-tier Tribunal decision was set aside and replaced by a decision that no offence was committed and no financial penalty was payable.
• First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber): found valid service of the improvement notice, rejected reasonable excuse, and imposed a financial penalty of £15,000.