Jeffery Utsler was employed by National Fleet Supply Company until he terminated his employment on July 25,1980. The issue before the Review Board was whether he had left his employment for good cause. He raises the following issues:

I. Whether the Indiana Employment Security Division (IESD) complied with the notice requirements of Ind. Code 22-4-17-6 and 640 IAC 1-11-1; and

II. Whether Utsler was denied due process when he was not notified of the referee’s hearing concerning his claim for unemployment benefits.

We reverse.

FACTS

On July 22, 1980, Utlser applied for unemployment compensation and listed his address as 408 E. 5th Street, Muncie.1 An IESD deputy decided he was eligible for benefits. This decision was made on August 1. An appeal was filed by National Fleet requesting a hearing before a referee. On August 29, Utsler informed the IESD that his address had changed to 402 Cooley Street, Yorktown, Indiana, c/o Bonnie Guf-fey. The referee’s hearing was set for September 17 and the IESD, on September 4, mailed notice of this hearing to Utsler’s Muncie address. Utsler alleged he did not receive this notice, and the hearing was held without him.2 The next day the referee reversed the deputy’s decision and denied Utsler benefits. The following day while reporting to the IESD office on his regular reporting day, Utsler was informed of the September 17th hearing and its result.3 He was advised to write the Appellate Section of the IESD to request a new hearing. He did as he was advised and his letter requesting a new hearing and explaining his failure to receive notice was received by the Appellate Section on September 22, one day before the referee’s decision was mailed.

Utsler’s request for a rehearing was treated as an appeal to the Review Board and without receiving any new evidence the Review Board affirmed the referee’s decision. The Board did not, however, address Utsler’s lack of notice. This decision was mailed to Utsler’s current address and only then did he find out his request for a new hearing had been treated as an appeal.

I. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS

Utsler’s position is the IESD failed to provide him notice of the referee’s hearing as required by both statute and regulation4 by not mailing the notice to his last known *713address. The Review Board argues the untenable position that “no statute or regulation supports the interpretation that a document is properly mailed only if it was sent to the [claimant’s] last known address” and therefore the IESD had complied with the statutory and regulatory notice provisions by mailing Utsler’s hearing notice to an address at which he no longer resided. As stated in IC 22-4-17-6, “each party to such hearing shall be mailed a notice of such hearing .... ” If we interpret “mailed” to mean anything but “mailed to the claimant’s last known address” we will effectively repeal the notice requirement enacted by the legislature since mailing an incorrectly addressed notice is tantamount to not mailing any notice at all.

In this case the IESD had knowledge of Utsler’s new address five days before the notice of hearing was mailed and 18 days before the hearing was held, yet it still failed to properly notify him of the hearing. The IESD did not comply with IC 22-4-17-6 and 640 IAC 1-11-1. Since Ut-sler was not given notice of the referee’s hearing, the September 17 hearing was invalid and he is entitled to a new hearing before a referee. This cause is reversed and remanded with instructions to the IESD to provide Utsler a new referee’s hearing.5

II. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS

Since we have decided this case on the above statutory basis, we need not address this constitutional argument.

Reversed.