Not Suitable - No Ending of Main Duty

R (on the application of Caroline Griffiths-Fowell) v Birmingham City Council [2026] EWCA Civ 920

The Court of Appeal heard Birmingham City Council’s appeal against the decision of HHJ Rawlings, sitting as a judge of the High Court in the Administrative Court, dated 27 November 2025.

The appeal raised two main issues:

(a)  Whether it was appropriate for a suitability challenge to proceed by way of judicial review, rather than requiring the applicant to request a review of the suitability decision and pursue any subsequent appeal under section 204 in the county court, i.e. the Part 7 remedy.

(b)  Where a local authority seeks to end the main housing duty under section 193(6)(d), i.e. the applicant has voluntarily ceased to occupy temporary accommodation as their only or principal home, must the accommodation be suitable?

Court of Appeal decision

(a)  Judicial review and Part 7 remedies

The Court of Appeal confirmed that, in certain circumstances, judicial review may be an appropriate route for challenging a local authority’s decision. The Court considered the principles in Salem and other authorities on the exercise of discretion in public law proceedings. It emphasised that such claims will generally only proceed where there is a significant public interest or a discrete legal issue.

In this case, there was an existing breach and a mandatory order in place, which made it appropriate for the claim to proceed by way of judicial review. The Court also noted that Birmingham City Council had not previously objected to the use of judicial review and had prepared its defence on that basis.

(b)  Voluntary cessation of temporary accommodation as the only or principal home

The applicant and her severely disabled brother had been provided with temporary accommodation at 7 Holden Close. Birmingham City Council accepted that the accommodation was unsuitable because required adaptations had not been completed.

The applicant was her brother’s carer, and he had been admitted to hospital following an incident of self-harm. When he returned to 7 Holden Close in July 2025, the applicant had suffered a mental health breakdown. On 1 August 2025, she signed an exclusive licence agreement with Windrush Alliance UK CIC to occupy Room 1, 48 Sycamore Road, Birmingham, which was supported accommodation.

Birmingham City Council then ended the main housing duty on the basis that she had voluntarily ceased to occupy the temporary accommodation as her only or principal home. The applicant argued that she had only occupied Room 1 for a few days’ respite while experiencing a mental health crisis, and not as her only or principal home.

The Court of Appeal did not decide whether the applicant had in fact voluntarily ceased to occupy the temporary accommodation as her only or principal home. They focused on whether, before ending the main duty under section 193(6)(d), the local authority had to be satisfied that the accommodation made available was suitable. The Court held that, for the duty to end under section 193(6)(d), the accommodation must be both ‘available’ and ‘suitable’ for occupation.

As Birmingham City Council accepted that the temporary accommodation was unsuitable, it was not entitled to end the main housing duty under section 193(6)(d).

Conclusion

A local authority cannot end the main housing duty on the basis that an applicant has voluntarily ceased to occupy temporary accommodation as their only or principal home unless the accommodation made available to them was suitable.

This decision highlights the importance of using templates that require officers to address all relevant statutory conditions. The specific section 193(6)(d) template provided by our sister company Aplos Housing Resources has always included a section on suitability, requiring officers to address that issue before deciding whether the duty has ended.