[2024] UKUT 93 (LC)

Mr Charles’ argument had no prospect of success. Section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 says this:

“(1)

Subject to subsection (8) below, subsections (2) to (5) below shall have effect in relation to any notice, order or other document required or authorised by or under any enactment to be given to or served on any person by or on behalf of a local authority or by an officer of a local authority.

(2)

Any such document may be given to or served on the person in question either by delivering it to him, or by leaving it at his proper address, or by sending it by post to him at that address.

…

(4)

For the purposes of this section … the proper address of any person to or on whom a document is to be given or served shall be his last known address…”

It is agreed that that section sets out the requirements for service of an Improvement Notice and of notices of intent relating to financial penalties. It is, as Mr Whatley put it, a utilitarian provision without which local government could not function. In Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v Tanna [2017] EWCA Civ 50 Lewison LJ said this about section 233, in the context of a planning enforcement notice:

“I would hold that as a general rule, unless there is a statutory requirement to the contrary, in a case in which i)  a person (in this case the local planning authority rather than the council taken as a whole) wishes to serve notice relating to a particular property on the owner of that property, and ii)  title to that property is registered at HM Land Registry, that person's obligation to make reasonable inquiries goes no further than to search the proprietorship register to ascertain the address of the registered proprietor. It is the responsibility of the registered proprietor to keep his address up to date.”

It is not possible to get past that Court of Appeal authority. The respondent in the present case used the address for service recorded at HM Land Registry for 58 Ollier Avenue, and therefore the notices were correctly served.