Omar v Birmingham City Council: CA 7 Jun 2007

The claimant said the authority had not discharged its duty to him in considering his application for housing. It had written to him saying ‘this is your one and final offer’, and that the council was satisfied that the accommodation was suitable for the needs of Mr Omar and his family and that it would be reasonable for him to accept it; and that, if he decided to refuse the offer without good reason to do so, the council would consider that it had discharged its duty to him under Part VII of the 1996 Act; and that accordingly no further offers of accommodation would be made. He said the notice did not state that the offer was final referring to the section.
Held: His appeal failed. Though the exact form of words had not been used it had been made quite clear that this was the final offer.
May LJ said that, although section 193(7A) was expressed in mandatory terms, a literal slavish repetition of the exact words of the subsection was not required. The explicit reference to a final offer in the local authority’s letter could only mean that it was an offer within Part VI and for that reason it might be possible to say that sub-section (7) was indeed complied with.


May LJ


[2007] EWCA Civ 610, Times 12-Jun-2007, [2007] JLR 43




Housing Act 1996 193(7)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRavichandran and Another v London Borough of Lewisham CA 2-Jul-2010
The claimant appealed against an order confirming a review of the decision that the local authority owed no futher duty to her under section 193. She had rejected the house offered as unsuitable for medical reasons.
Held: The tenant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.253689