Baqir Al-Chaalan & Anor v Abri Group Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 946 provides helpful reassurance for registered providers of social housing regarding service of possession proceedings where a tenant’s whereabouts are uncertain.
The background
The tenant had been absent from the property for several years after traveling abroad. The landlord believed he had either ceased to occupy the property as his only or principal home, had sublet it or may have died. Proceedings to recover possession of the property were issued and served at the tenancy address.
Following the making of an order for possession at first instance at a hearing at which the tenant failed to attend, the tenant sought to have the order set aside, arguing that he had not been validly served and had been deprived of the opportunity to defend the claim.
The Court held that the claim had been validly served in accordance with the Civil Procedure Rules and that the tenant was aware of the hearing where the order for possession was made. The Court determined that there was no good reason for the tenant failing to attend that hearing and, further, that the application had not been made promptly. That application was dismissed, and the tenant appealed that ruling. A Circuit Judge dismissed that appeal, finding that the proceedings had been properly served. The tenant subsequently lodged a further appeal.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
The appeal was dismissed.
The Court of Appeal held that service at the property was valid because the tenancy agreement contained a clause stating that:
“Any legal notice, or any other communications arising from the Agreement, shall be treated as validly served on the Tenant if posted or delivered to the Premises.”
The Court found that a possession claim form fell within the meaning of a “legal notice” arising from the tenancy agreement. As a result, the property remained a valid address for service under CPR 6.8, despite uncertainty regarding the tenant’s actual whereabouts.
The Court also upheld the lower courts’ findings that the tenant was aware of the proceedings and had failed to act promptly in seeking to set aside the possession order.
Key lessons for social housing landlords
1. Review tenancy agreement service clauses
This case demonstrates the value of clear contractual provisions allowing legal notices and proceedings to be served at the tenancy address. Such clauses can provide an important safeguard where a tenant has vacated the property or their current address is unknown.
2. Do not rely solely on contractual service provisions
The Court did not fully determine how CPR 6.9(3) would apply where a landlord believes a tenant no longer resides at the property. Landlords should still make and record reasonable inquiries to establish a tenant’s current address or contact details where there is evidence they may have moved elsewhere.
3. Maintain clear audit trails
Evidence of inspections, communications with occupiers, enquiries regarding the tenant’s whereabouts, and reasons for serving at a particular address may prove crucial if service is later challenged.
4. Communicate with representatives where possible
Although the landlord ultimately succeeded, the courts described its failure to engage with the tenant’s solicitors as “regrettable.” Landlords and their legal teams should ensure correspondence from representatives is properly considered and responded to wherever appropriate.
Practical takeaway
For Registered Providers of Social Housing, this decision highlights the protective value of well-drafted tenancy agreements containing robust service provisions. However, where there are indications that a tenant no longer resides at the property, landlords should continue to approach service with caution and carefully consider their obligations under CPR 6.9 before issuing possession proceedings.
Where appropriate, landlords may want to attempt service via email or other electronic means, in addition to serving at the tenant’s last known address, to demonstrate all attempts to bring the proceedings to the attention of the tenant have been made. However, in those cases where landlords do not hold current contact details or information regarding the tenants’ whereabouts, this case demonstrates that service at the property, as last known address for the tenant, should be sufficient for the court to consider the claim.
Why this matters: Challenges to service are a common tactic in possession proceedings involving long-term absences, succession disputes and alleged subletting. This judgment strengthens landlords’ ability to rely on contractual service clauses, while serving as a reminder that reasonable enquiries into a tenant’s whereabouts remain an important risk-management step.
Please contact our housing management team for any further assistance.
Written by Rabiat Olajide