No Ending of Main Duty Decision Letter Required
- Housing Reviews
- 3 days ago
- 7 min read
The Supreme Court heard Ms Bano's appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment of 7 February 2025 concerning the discharge of the section 193 Housing Act 1996 main housing duty following a private rented sector offer (PRSO).
This judgment has huge significance for those of us that carry out S202 reviews and for those officers making offers of accommodation and seeking to end the main duty.
Background
Waltham Forest Council accepted the main housing duty in 2017 and subsequently made a PRSO in Derby on 11 June 2020. The offer letter stated that the accommodation was suitable and that the main housing duty would end if the offer was accepted or refused. The applicant did not attend the viewing and the authority treated this as a refusal. No subsequent letter was issued specifically confirming discharge of the duty.
The authority's offer letter was later shown to be deficient because it did not fully explain the reapplication duty under section 195A Housing Act 1996.
Supreme Court Findings
1. No separate end-of-duty letter is required for section 193 (7) or 193(7AA)
The Supreme Court held that, where the statutory requirements are met, the main housing duty under section 193(2) ceases automatically when an applicant accepts or refuses a private rented sector offer. The authority does not have to make a further post-refusal or post-acceptance decision, and it does not have to send a separate letter confirming that the duty has ended. This also applies to a refusal of a Part 6 offer (section 193(7)) where that offer is also compliant.
The Court contrasted section 193(7AA) with section 193(5). Section 193(5) expressly requires the authority to notify the applicant that it regards itself as ceasing to be subject to the duty. No equivalent requirement appears in section 193(7A) or 193(7AA).
Legal Observation
This is arguably the most significant aspect of the judgment. It confirms that the operative decision is contained within the offer letter itself. Authorities are therefore not required to create a second, reviewable decision after the applicant has accepted or refused the offer. This resolves longstanding debate arising from the interaction between sections 193 and 202 Housing Act 1996 and significantly limits opportunities for applicants to argue that a fresh review right has arisen at a later stage.
2. Review rights do not need to be explained beyond suitability, but wider wording is good practice
The offer letter was a decision that the Council considered the offer suitable and that acceptance or refusal would bring the main duty to an end, subject to any successful review. The 21-day period for requesting a review therefore runs from notification of the offer letter, not from a later confirmation letter.
The Court confirmed that authorities must inform applicants of their right to request a review of the suitability of accommodation. However, there is no statutory requirement to advise applicants that they may also seek a review of the decision that acceptance or refusal of the offer will discharge the main duty.
The Court nevertheless stated that it would be good practice for authorities to provide such information.
Legal Observation
Whilst the Court adopted a strict interpretation of the statutory scheme, it clearly recognised the practical fairness concerns. The recommendation regarding best practice suggests that authorities should amend PRSO and Part 6 offer templates to expressly refer to both review rights:
review of suitability; and
review of the authority's decision that the duty will cease upon acceptance or refusal.
Doing so may reduce future challenges based upon procedural fairness.
3. Defective statutory information must be challenged through the review process
The Council’s offer letter had failed to include all the information required about the reapplication duty under section 195A. The Court accepted that, if Mrs Bano had requested a review within time, this defect could have been raised and may have succeeded. However, because no review was requested within the statutory period, the decision that the main duty came to an end stood.
Legal Observation
This is favourable to local authorities in terms of finality, but it should not be treated as reducing the need for compliant letters. A defective offer remains vulnerable if challenged within 21 days, or within any longer period allowed by the authority.
4. Later confirmatory letters do not create fresh review rights
The Court held that later correspondence confirming that the main duty had ended did not amount to a new decision and therefore did not generate a fresh section 202 review right.
Legal Observation
This aspect of the judgment significantly narrows the scope for applicants to revive long-expired review rights.
The Court's reasoning reinforces that:
the original offer letter is the reviewable decision;
subsequent letters are merely confirmatory; and
review time limits cannot be circumvented through later correspondence.
Authorities should therefore carefully retain evidence of service of the original offer letter, as that document becomes the critical decision for review purposes.
5. Non-Receipt of the Offer Letter and Out-of-Time Reviews
Where an authority treats failure to attend a viewing as refusal, but the applicant says they did not receive the offer letter, the Supreme Court stated that the applicant may request an out-of-time review and that the local authority should consider this. The Court recognised that a similar issue may arise where the applicant accepts or refuses the offer after the 21-day period has expired. The Supreme Court stated that the applicant may request an out-of-time review also in such cases.
Legal Observation
This is perhaps the least certain aspect of the judgment from a practical perspective.
There are concerns that disputes may arise regarding whether authorities should exercise discretion to accept out-of-time review requests.
In practice, this may lead to increased litigation regarding:
proof of service;
proof of receipt;
reasonable explanations for delay; and
the exercise of discretion under section 202.
At Housing Reviews we have consistently advocated the use of a "suitability letter" by the officer who made the offer, within 24 hours where an applicant raises concerns about the suitability of an offer. We also advocate that this letter is sent when an applicant does not respond to the offer.
The purpose of the suitability letter is to:
Address the applicant's concerns about suitability at an early stage.
Provide a clear record of the authority's consideration of those issues.
Generate a further reviewable decision if appropriate.
Reduce the likelihood that a review officer will need to issue a Regulation 7 "minded to" letter during the review process.
Increase the chances/proof that the applicant has been notified of the offer.
Ensure that an applicant is given a second chance to accept the offer, thus providing further evidence of a refusal if they do not.
This approach preferable to relying solely on the original offer letter, because a review of a suitability letter will often allow the authority to engage directly with the applicant's concerns before the matter progresses further.
Practical Implications for Local Authorities
Below is a summary of all the ways that the main duty comes to an end and guidance of what letters should be sent.
Section 193(5): refusal of accommodation which is not Part 6 or PRSO accommodation (temporary accommodation)
Where section 193(5) applies, the authority must send:
1. An offer letter informing the applicant of the possible consequences of refusal or acceptance and of the right to request a review of suitability; and
2. A decision letter notifying the applicant that the authority regards itself as ceasing to be subject to the main housing duty.
This is because section 193(5)(c) expressly requires notification that the authority regards itself as ceasing to be subject to the duty.
Section 193(6) Cases
s193(6)(a) Applicant ceases to be eligible for assistance.
The duty ceases if the applicant ceases to be eligible. Once the authority becomes aware of this, it should send a decision letter explaining that the applicant is no longer eligible and that no main duty is owed. This decision is reviewable under section 202(1)(a) and/or section 202(1)(b).
s193(6)(b) Applicant becomes intentionally homeless from accommodation made available.
The authority should send a decision letter explaining why it considers the applicant has become intentionally homeless from the temporary accommodation and that the main duty has ceased. This will usually carry review rights under section 202(1)(b).
s193(6)(c) Applicant accepts an offer of accommodation under Part 6.
No separate end-of-duty letter is required where the applicant has accepted a valid Part 6 offer and the offer process has already made clear that acceptance will bring the duty to an end. A confirmation letter may still be used as good administrative practice where helpful, but it should not suggest a fresh review right unless there is a new reviewable decision.
s193(6)(d) Applicant voluntarily ceases to occupy accommodation made available as their only or principal home.
The authority should send a decision letter setting out the facts relied upon, why the authority considers the applicant voluntarily ceased to occupy as their only or principal home, and why the main duty has ceased. The letter communicates the authority’s substantive decision and will carry review rights under section 202(1)(b).
Section 193(7): refusal of a final Part 6 offer
Where an applicant refuses a final offer of accommodation under Part 6, the authority must have sent an offer letter which:
informs the applicant of the possible consequences of refusal or acceptance;
informs the applicant of the right to request a review of suitability; and
states that the offer is a final offer for the purposes of section 193(7).
No separate end-of-main-duty letter is required.
Section 193(7AA): acceptance or refusal of a private rented sector offer
Where an applicant accepts or refuses a private rented sector offer, the authority must have sent a compliant offer letter informing the applicant of the statutory matters, including the possible consequences of accepting or refusing the offer and the right to request a review of suitability.
No separate end-of-main-duty letter is required.
Key Takeaway
The Supreme Court has confirmed that the offer letter is the key decision document. Any challenge to suitability, statutory compliance or discharge of duty must normally be brought within 21 days of that offer letter. Later correspondence does not create a new review right.
For housing authorities, the judgment reduces administrative requirements but increases the importance of ensuring that offer letters are legally compliant, clearly drafted and properly served.
This judgment highlights the importance of using templates that require officers to detail all relevant statutory requirements. The offer letter templates provided by our sister company Aplos Housing Resources have always included all statutory requirements as well as provide “suitability letters”.
What about offers made in relation to the prevention and relief duties?
The judgment did not make reference to offers made to end the prevention or relief duties. It is very likely that an ‘end of duty’ letter will be required at the prevention and relief stage as refusal or acceptance of an offer does not automatically bring to an end the duties. The law actually says, ‘may come to an end’, hence requiring a formal decision letter that the local authority has decided to bring to an end the prevention or relief duty.
Comments