Lamba v Enfield LBC: Sending May Not Always Equate to Service

Imagine you’ve drafted your notice to end your commercial lease, you’ve sent it via Special Delivery to the correct address, and you’ve even kept the postage receipt. You would be forgiven for thinking you have done everything required for valid service and that you can now treat the lease as terminated.

In Lamba v London Borough of Enfield, the High Court ruled that this was not enough and that 'sent' does not always mean 'served'.

Background to the Case

Enfield LBC had leased a shop to Lamba, an estate agent. The lease benefitted from the protections contained within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the “1954 Act”), meaning that the lease would not come to an end until either party terminates the lease in accordance with the 1954 Act. In the case of a Landlord, valid service of a notice under section 25 of the 1954 Act is required to bring the lease to an end.  

Enfield LBC opposed the renewal of the lease and subsequently posted a Section 25 notice to Lamba using a registered postal service, but it was returned undelivered. Having assumed the notice had been validly served, Enfield LBC treated the lease as having terminated, took back possession of the shop and later demolished it.

As Lamba had not received the Section 25 notice, they disputed the validity of the notice and issued proceedings alleging that they had been unlawfully evicted. Enfield LBC ended up losing the case.

The question before the court, on the face of it, was simple: has the Section 25 notice been validly served so as to effectively terminate the lease?

The Legal Position

Section 66 of the 1954 Act incorporates Section 23 of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1927 (the “1927 Act”), which provides that a notice may be served by “sending it through the post in a registered letter”.

Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that where a statute authorises any document to be served by post, there is, unless the contrary intention appears, a rebuttable presumption that by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting the document, it is delivered “in the ordinary course of post”. This means that a notice sent by registered post can be validly served even if it is returned undelivered.

Enfield LBC thought they were home and dry with this established statutory framework for deemed service of a section 25 notice, but had failed to take into account the specific clauses within the lease, an error on which this case ultimately turned.

Section 196

The lease in this case also had a specific notice clause saying that Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (the “LPA 1925”) shall apply.

Section 196 (4) LPA 1925 has a hidden nuance not found in Section 66 of the 1954 Act; it states that where a recorded letter is returned by the Post Office, service of the same is invalid. I outline the relevant section below:

“Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered..”

The court ruled that because the lease specifically incorporated Section 196 of the LPA 1925, service in accordance with that section was mandatory and the landlord could not rely on Section 66 of the 1954 Act. By incorporating Section 196 of the LPA 1925 into the lease, which is often a boilerplate clause in many commercial leases, Enfield LBC, to their detriment, deprived themselves of the statutory shortcuts discussed earlier.

The Consequences for Enfield LBC

Because the notice was returned, the court deemed it was never served, and so it followed:

1. The Section 25 notice was dead.
2. The landlord’s attempt to change the locks was an unlawful eviction.
3. The tenant remained in possession.

What could we take from Lamba v Enfield LBC?

• Firstly, never assume standard service works. You must read the 'Notices' clause in the specific lease every single time.
• Secondly, if Section 196 is mentioned, 'Recorded Delivery' is always a risk. If it’s returned, you’ve failed.
• The Fix: Use the 'Belt and Braces' approach. Consider serving by hand, serving by ordinary first-class post (which doesn't require a signature), and for good measure, serve by recorded delivery.

In property law, the postman only rings twice—but if nobody answers, your notice might be worthless.