Court of Appeal

Published June 12, 2007

Omar v Birmingham City Council

It was not necessary for a letter offering accommodation in discharge of a local housing authority’s duty under the Housing Act 1996 to a person with priority need who was not intentionally homeless to state in so many words that the letter was “a final offer for the purposes of section 193(7)” where it was clear that it was a final offer.

The Court of Appeal (Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor, Lord Justice May and Lord Justice Lloyd) so stated on June 7, 2007, dismissing the appeal of Abdelrazzag Omar, from the decision of Judge Swindells, QC, on October 24, 2006 that Birmingham City Council had discharged its duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.

The council, pursuant to its duty to secure accommodation for the applicant, made an offer in a letter which stated that “this is your one and final offer”. The applicant refused the offer and requested a suitability review which decided that the accommodation was suitable.

The applicant appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the council had not discharged its duty because the offer failed to comply with the requirements of section 193(7) of the 1996 Act.

LORD JUSTICE MAY said that there had been conflicting decisions on the point in the county courts. The mere addition of the words “for the purposes of section 193” told the applicant nothing new: see Slater v Lewisham London Borough Council ( The Times May 3, 2005). The council’s letter had conveyed everything which was relevant.

Times Recommends

• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers
• Prince Charles named in £81m court battle