Serving Notice query ***Resolved***

[HP Mum]

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 September 25, 2019 by HP Mum

[dx100uk]

notice of what?

 

 

[AndyOrch]

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

[HP Mum]

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?

[BazzaS]

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.

[HP Mum]

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

[BazzaS]

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

[HP Mum]

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

[BazzaS]

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 September 26, 2019 by BazzaS

[HP Mum]

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

[BazzaS]

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

Edited September 26, 2019 by BazzaS

[HP Mum]

But that can't happen.

[BazzaS]

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”

[HP Mum]

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 September 26, 2019 by HP Mum

[BazzaS]

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 September 26, 2019 by BazzaS

[HP Mum]

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

[BazzaS]

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?

[HP Mum]

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...

[BazzaS]

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.

[HP Mum]

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 October 18, 2019 by HP Mum

[AndyOrch]

Thread title updated.