Tenant lied about receiving S8 Notice hearing adjourned?

If you had employed a process server you could prove it had been served.

Justice Served https://justice-served.com trace absconded tenants and personally serve legal documents.

Reply to the comment left by Laura Delow at 14/02/2023 - 11:06
I would issue section 21..no fault notice..then issue separate money claim for the arrears!

Reply to the comment left by Chris H at 14/02/2023 - 17:33
Good for you putting a copy on the front door. I've had possession orders granted previously with the same TA and method of delivery, the difference here is the tenant is saying she did not receive the S8 notice.

Thanks again to everyone.

Reply to the comment left by Miriam Johnson at 14/02/2023 - 17:42Issuing a moneyclaim is vital, it does not have to be for the full amount owing. The documents are served at the last known address of the defendent; after about three weeks you can obtain a default judgement. You will never receive payment but will have the satisfaction of knowing that the tenant will have a low credit score and will find it difficult to obtain any further rental property or indeed a mortgage or a credit card or a bank account or in extreme cases employment.

You did not state where you served the documents. If you knew the tenant did not live at the property but served at the property anyway, then it's for you to prove that you did all you can to find out where they are actually living for proper service otherwise the Court will side with the Defendant (or Respondent or whatever). That's my understanding anyway.

Having read the case in question. I note that this refers to a Secure tenancy, one which has a much higher security of tenure than an AST and of a local authority and the decision was based on Section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972.Which of course does not apply to private sector landlords.

In addition the case revolves around a second tenancy being entered into when the repayment was agreed. It was for this second secure tenancy that the judge felt notice had not been received.

Case law is not a blanket one size fits all, we all take a little bit from various decisions to build a case for defence ( or prosecution) My argument here would be that given the lesser tenure of the AST that Enfield v Devonish was not relevant in the requirement to prove the tenant had received the notice

Reply to the comment left by Julie Ford at 15/02/2023 - 09:09It's an interesting argument but I think the counter to it would be that an AST is a specific variety of assured tenancy and that the only differences between the two are those created by statute. Any thoughts on that?
Are you aware of any reason why standard tenancy agreements specify how documents can be served, other than to avoid the problem in the present case?

Reply to the comment left by Seething Landlord at 14/02/2023 - 16:34
"Judges have to apply the law."

No, it is wll established that judges DECIDE the law by their interpretation of the Statutes and Regulations in force and with the persuasion made by Counsel, if that were not so there would be no need for Appeal Courts; I once heard a Judge joke which goes something like "We have to have the higher courts to hear the decisons of the lower and to set them right". And even on decided law, judges and Magistrates are sometimes misguided or perverse.

To save a seconf reply, I'm unsure as to which tenant "turned up" do you mean the one in the referred to case or that of the OP, in either case case, and without further knowledge, I woud note that THEY DID turn uo and had thus somehow been communciated with. It is surely pervers to think that they received the Summons but not the duly served Notices, what pther address would the court have used?

Reply to the comment left by moneymanager at 15/02/2023 - 10:05
Sorry, you might think that I am splitting hairs but your comment illustrates that judges apply the law according to their understanding of it. They decide how they believe it applies to the case in front of them. The fact that their decision is subject to appeal underlines the position.

To answer your second point, I was referring to the defendant in the OP's case, who was evidently present at the hearing. The debate is over what constitutes effective service when the tenancy agreement is silent on the matter, taking account of the argument raised by the defence lawyer, who cited the Enfield case.