Jump to content


HP Mum

Serving Notice query ***Resolved***

Recommended Posts

Question: does a lawyer have to know where to serve Notice for it to be served correctly?

 

For example: can they serve Notice at an address where someone lived decades ago when they know that is not their residence?

 

Can they legally Serve Notice by email ?

 

Edited by HP Mum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

notice of what?

 

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what type of Notice you are serving...but if you dont have the correct address ..its rather pointless as it will be deemed not served correctly.

 

" can they serve Notice at an address where someone lived decades ago when they know that is not their residence? "   No unless you can prove there is still a connection to that property

 

With regards to Email service....

 

No, generally email does not constitute valid notice unless: (a) you can prove that the person actually got it and read it, typically because they have admitted to it or responded to your email, (b) you have agreed with them in advance that emailing them qualifies as notice, or (c) less commonly, there is a statute on point that says that email notice is okay. It's a poor form of notice, because lots of email gets deleted, lost in people's spam filters, bounces, etc. Incidentally, certified mail suffers many of the same deficiencies. There is no law that says, universally, that certified mail is adequate notice.

 

Andy


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leasehold property repossessed. 

Freehold protected and held separately by different entity, not owned by leaseholder. 

 

Lender now trying to serve notice for fh. 

But the Lender repossessed the lease and freeholders are not in residence.   

Lender has no other known contact address for freeholders.

 

Lender tried serving by email on leaseholder

- even though leaseholder doesn't own the fh -

 is that legal? 

 

The property address on the Notice was incorrect. 

No return receipt or acknowledgement given. 

 

Then lender tried serving on aged relative of leaseholder

- again nothing to do with freehold. 

 

Should aged relative return to sender?

 

Aside from whether lender can or can't acquire the fh

- if they haven't served Notice correctly on the freeholders into their hands, then has Notice actually been served?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Service to the address itself, and (if different), the last known address for the freeholder.

 

If mortgage payments are being made the mortgage company might try to send a letter via the bank servicing the payment, but don’t have to as they’ll be able to show they have made all reasonable effort via the address(es) made available to them by the freeholder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bazza - no mortgage on fh.  the only known address for the freeholders is the property, that lender repossessed on lease basis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then service to the property. What else can the mortgage company be expected to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Property is boarded up/ no letter box.  That is the point.  How can lender serve notice legally when they know there is no way of delivering to the address

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the lender now has possession, if they wanted to they can lawfully obtain entry, leave notice, then resecure the property

 

I don’t know if they WOULD, but they COULD.

 

Who boarded up the property? How do you know they haven’t left notice inside already?? 

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes  of course.   But that still doesn't mean the freeholder is served - if the freeholder has no access

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freeholder is considered served if notice has been left : then up to the freeholder to gain access!

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that can't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not?

mortgage co. isn't preventing it.

 

The mortgage company has the responsibility to take all reasonable steps to serve notice.

That doesn’t mean they are prevented from doing so if the FH has made it difficult for them to do so.

 

It is up to the FH to ensure they access any notice deemed to have been served.

”Deemed to have been served” is not identical to “must have been received”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I'm not being clear.  The lender has made it difficult/ is preventing the freeholders access. The lender has boarded up the leasehold property because it is in their possession.  The freeholder doesn't have automatic right of access over and above the leaseholder.  The lender knows the freeholders aren't there and don't have access, so they can't serve and papers can't be received.  post #3 andy says as much.  it is a bizarre situation.  the lender has created their own problem??!!

Edited by HP Mum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the FH will have to speak to the mortgage company to obtain access doesn’t prevent notice having been “deemed to have been served”.

 

If the notice was sent, by ordinary mail, to the address (it being the only address the lender had to serve notice on the FH), then it is deemed served unless proved to the contrary.

 

If a copy was left at that address, regardless of if the FH then has to obtain access to it: again “deemed served”

 

You seem to be focusing on if the lender can prove notice was received, rather than if the lender can show notice was served.

 

Otherwise people could just avoid receiving notice by making themselves unobtainable.

A court would look at “did the sender take reasonable steps to serve the notice”.

 

What are you aiming to achieve as a realistic outcome in your real-world scenario?

Edited by BazzaS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - but they can't prove notice has been served.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can show what they have done to consider it has been served.

Then it’d be up to the court to decide.

 

Almost all notices are sent by ordinary post and are deemed to have been served, without the sender having (or needing!) proof of delivery.

 

Are you saying they can’t prove it was served or can’t prove it was received? The two AREN’T the same ....

 

What are you aiming to achieve as a realistic outcome in your real-world scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your assistance.  I think i mean both.  ref post #3 "...but if you don't have the correct address ..its rather pointless as it will be deemed not served correctly."

I need to research this a bit more..  Its quite complicated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You "think you mean both" : The answers to both might be the same, but can differ.

Without knowing what you are actually trying to achieve, it is hard to tell which is the more important to have answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This kind of got resolved - in the sense freeholders managed to receive legal docs and dealt with the Notice as being legally incorrect in intent and qualification.  So this issue is now over.  Thanks for earlier thoughts here.

Edited by HP Mum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread title updated.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...