Southwark LBC v Akhtar

<p>Like <a href="http://www.newsontheblock.com/lvt-case-law/oliver-v-sheffield-city-council"><u>Sheffield v Oliver</u></a>, this case concerned the payability of service charges under leases granted pursuant to the right to buy. &nbsp;&nbsp;The case came before the UT on an appeal brought by the Council against the decision of the F-tT.&nbsp; There were two Respondents.&nbsp; Each Respondent held a lease of a flat.&nbsp; The Deputy Judge (Judge Elizabeth Cooke) grouped the issues into three groups – those relating to the validity of a contractual notice given under the lease and by which the Council notified the tenant of the estimated service charge expenditure for the forthcoming year, those relating to the service of notices under s.20B Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and those relating to the validity of those notices under s.20B.&nbsp; The focus of this review will be on the second of the groups, service of the s.20B notices.</p><p>The Council said that it gave notice under s.20B.&nbsp; The notices said to have been given to the Respondents were two of 15,000 the Council had to deliver.&nbsp; It contracted out its postal service for this exercise.&nbsp; The Council provided the contractor with the text of the notice and the details of the tenants so that it (the contractor) could carry out a mail merge to produce individual notices, put them in envelopes, frank them with the cost of 2^nd class mail and the given them to Royal Mail for delivery.&nbsp; One of the Respondents (Ms Akhtar) denied receipt.</p>