Court of Appeal considers landlord’s reasonable excuse after unreceived improvement notice

The Court of Appeal considered whether a landlord has a "reasonable excuse" for not complying with an improvement notice she never received, when it was sent to her Land Registry address. It affects landlords, tenants and councils.

In Manchester City Council v Tabbasam [2026] EWCA Civ 361, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) gave judgment on 26 March 2026 after a hearing on 19 March 2026. Lord Justice Zacaroli gave the judgment, and Lady Justice Falk and Lord Justice Dove were also on the panel.

Background

Naila Tabbasam owns 58 Ollier Avenue, which she lets to tenants. In March 2019 the tenants complained to Manchester City Council about disrepair. The Land Registry showed her address for service as the property itself. The council's council tax records showed a different address, and she had in fact lived elsewhere since 2014.

The council sent its letters and notices, including an improvement notice dated 14 May 2019, to the council tax address and, for most of them, to the property. A notice of intent proposing a £22,500 financial penalty followed on 15 November 2019, and a final notice on 10 January 2020. Ms Tabbasam received none of them. In July 2020 a final reminder reached her at her real address, and she then appealed the penalty. Counsel for the council stressed that the improvement notice identified serious concerns, including a category 1 hazard of inadequate heating.

The question

Under the Housing Act 2004, a person commits an offence by failing to comply with an improvement notice that has become operative, but has a defence if they have a reasonable excuse. The issue was whether not receiving a validly served notice, where the Land Registry address was out of date, can be a reasonable excuse.

The earlier decisions

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), on 22 May 2023, found an offence and held that her failure to update her addresses was not a reasonable excuse. It reduced the penalty to £15,000. Upper Tribunal Judge Cooke allowed her appeal on 10 April 2024, finding she did have a reasonable excuse. The council appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The court's reasoning on the law

Lord Justice Zacaroli held that the First-tier Tribunal was wrong to base its conclusion on Tanna. That case concerned only whether service of a notice was effective, and said nothing about the defence of reasonable excuse. Service was not in dispute here. The question was the separate one of whether the defence was made out.

The council relied on other cases (Serpes, Rushmoor and Bravington) in which non-receipt did not affect valid service. Ms Tabbasam's counsel submitted that none involved a statutory reasonable excuse defence, so they did not bear on it. The court accepted that, at most, they show harsh consequences can follow where a statute provides no such defence.

The council's counsel did not dispute that ignorance of the law might in an appropriate case be relevant to a reasonable excuse. The court noted this was common ground and did not decide the point. The council argued that reasonableness is judged objectively, taking account of the person's experience and circumstances.

Sources

• Manchester City Council v Naila Tabbasam [2026] EWCA Civ 361, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 26 March 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/361