A recent decision concerning lease renewals under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 illustrates potential pitfalls that can invalidate the service of a section 25 notice.
In Lamba v Enfield LBC [2025] 11 WLUK 608, the Claimant tenant was seeking damages for breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment after he had been evicted from his premises by the defendant local authority.
The preliminary issue to be determined was whether a section 25 notice served by the landlord terminating the lease of business premises had been validly served on the tenant. The section 25 notice had been served by special delivery only but had been returned undelivered.
The lease provided that section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 applied to the giving and service of all notices and documents under or in connection with the lease.
The court held that service was ineffective where the registered or recorded delivery letter was returned to the sender. The judge appeared to take the view that the contractual service provisions in the particular lease displaced section 23 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 which provides that returned post does not necessarily mean that a notice has not been validly served. The court could not properly infer from one undated copy of an envelope that the section 25 notice had also been sent by first class post. There had therefore been no valid service of the section 25 notice.
This decision should be treated with some caution and may be subject to appeal. However it highlights the need to ensure that all proper steps are taken to ensure that a section 25 notice or any other notice is validly served.
