Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v Tanna

Factual and Procedural Background

Since December 1996, the Defendant has been the registered proprietor of a derelict former nursing home located at Lake View, King's Road, in The City. The local planning authority, Company A, decided to serve a notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to address the adverse condition of the property. The notice, if validly served, would allow Company A to demolish the property and recover costs from the Defendant.

Service of the notice was attempted by an officer of Company A's planning department, who used the Defendant's address as recorded in the proprietorship register at HM Land Registry, which was a previous residence at Greenfield Close. Notices were hand-delivered to Greenfield Close and affixed to the property, as well as sent to an address at Dairyground Road, which was not the Defendant's residence. At the time of service, the Defendant no longer lived at Greenfield Close and had moved to another location unknown to Company A. Some communication via email existed between the Defendant and other departments of Company A, but this was not known to the planning department.

The Defendant challenged the validity of the service of the notice. The lower court, Judge Recorder Klein, held that the notice had not been validly served. The appeal concerns whether the service was valid.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Company A validly served notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 on the Defendant.
2. The proper interpretation and application of statutory provisions governing service of notices, particularly sections 233 of the Local Government Act 1972 and 329 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3. The extent of reasonable inquiries required to ascertain the "last known address" or "last known place of abode" for service of notice.
4. The effect of non-compliance with statutory form requirements in the addressing of notices affixed to unoccupied land.

Arguments of the Parties

Company A's Arguments

• Service was valid because the notice was served at the Defendant's "last known address" or "last known place of abode," which was Greenfield Close, as per sections 233 and 329.
• The address recorded in the proprietorship register at HM Land Registry is the proper address for service.

Defendant's Arguments

• The Defendant no longer resided at Greenfield Close and Company A had constructive knowledge of his new address through internal communications.
• The notice affixed to the property was invalid because it was not addressed to "the owners and any occupiers" as required by section 329(3) of the 1990 Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R (Tull) v Camberwell Green Magistrates Court [2004] EWHC 2780 (Admin)	Definition of "last known address" including actual and constructive knowledge	Supported the principle that reasonable steps must be taken to ascertain the current address before relying on a former address.
Collier v Williams [2006] EWCA Civ 20	Clarification of "last known address" including constructive knowledge	Used to confirm the need for reasonable inquiries before serving notice at a former address.
London Borough of Newham v Ahmed [2016] EWHC 679 (Admin)	Validity of service of enforcement notice at registered address at Land Registry	Held that service at the registered address was valid despite the local authority having other correspondence addresses.
Newham LBC v Miah [2016] EWHC 1043 (Admin)	Relevance of local planning department knowledge vs. council-wide knowledge for service of notices	Confirmed that the planning department's knowledge, primarily from the Land Registry, governs proper address for service.
London & Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council [1980] 1 WLR 182	Interpretation of statutory non-compliance consequences	Referenced regarding whether non-compliance with form requirements invalidates notices.
R v Soneji [2005] UKHL 49	Principle against absurd or futile statutory interpretations	Applied to reject a strict invalidity for minor non-compliance in notice wording.
Petch v Gurney [1994] 3 All ER 731	Approach to statutory interpretation and consequences of non-compliance	Used to support the court's reasoning on statutory compliance.
Newbold v The Coal Board [2013] EWCA Civ 584	Statutory interpretation and effect of non-compliance	Referenced in context of assessing the impact of non-compliance with statutory notice requirements.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the statutory framework governing service of notices under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Local Government Act 1972, as well as the relevant Land Registration Rules. It emphasized that the "last known address" or "last known place of abode" includes both actual and constructive knowledge, requiring reasonable inquiries to ascertain the current address before relying on an outdated address.

The court held that the local planning authority's obligation to make reasonable inquiries is satisfied by consulting the proprietorship register at HM Land Registry, which is a public and open register. It is the responsibility of the registered proprietor to keep their address for service up to date. The planning department is not required to search the entire council's records for alternative addresses.

In the present case, Company A had no knowledge of the Defendant's new address and had served the notice at the address recorded at the Land Registry. The court found this to be a proper address for service under the statutory provisions and consistent with precedent, including the Newham cases.

Regarding the notice affixed to the property, although the statutory form required addressing to "the owners and any occupiers," the court reasoned that where the land is unoccupied, omitting "the occupiers" does not invalidate the notice. The court rejected the argument that strict literal compliance was necessary in such circumstances, invoking the principle that Parliament does not intend absurd or futile results.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was allowed.

The court held that service of the notice on the Defendant at the address recorded in the proprietorship register at HM Land Registry was valid. Furthermore, the failure to include "the occupiers" in the notice affixed to the unoccupied property did not invalidate the service. This decision clarifies that, absent knowledge of a more current address, local planning authorities may rely on the Land Registry address for service of notices under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The ruling emphasizes the responsibility of registered proprietors to maintain an up-to-date address for service and limits the inquiry obligations of local planning authorities to reasonable steps, primarily consulting the Land Registry.

No new precedent was established beyond the clarification and reinforcement of existing principles regarding proper service of statutory notices.