A resident emails the site office. Their therapist has written a letter. They would like to keep a cat in a building with a no-pets policy. FHEO 2020-01 provided a detailed HUD framework for assessing that request. That notice was withdrawn in September 2025.

The email still needs an answer, and the underlying reasonable-accommodation obligation did not change. What changed is that there is no longer a HUD notice to follow step by step.

Here is the process built on what remains: the regulation, and the 2004 HUD and DOJ Joint Statement on Reasonable Accommodations, which is still published as technical assistance.

Step One: Recognise That It Is A Request

An emotional support animal request rarely arrives labelled as one.

The 2004 Joint Statement says a request is made whenever the resident makes clear they are asking for an exception, change or adjustment to a rule, policy, practice or service because of a disability. No particular form, no required wording, and it may be made orally or by someone acting on the resident's behalf.

So the email above is a request. So is a comment to a leasing agent that "my doctor says I should have a dog." So is a relative calling on the resident's behalf.

The Joint Statement also says a provider may not refuse to consider a request because the resident did not follow the provider's own procedure. A form is useful. But failure to use the provider's procedure does not, by itself, eliminate the obligation to consider the request.

Step Two: Record The Date

Before anything else.

The Joint Statement states that providers have an obligation to respond promptly, and that an undue delay in responding may be deemed to be a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

It sets no fixed number of days. Which means the date the request arrived is the fixed starting point, and the record of what happened after it helps establish whether the response was prompt.

Step Three: Work Out Which Situation You Are In

The Joint Statement distinguishes three situations.

1. Where the disability and the need are both readily apparent, requesting additional documentation is unlikely to be appropriate. The seeing eye dog in 24 CFR 100.204's own first example is the paradigm.

2. Where the disability is apparent but the need for the animal is not, the provider may request only information necessary to evaluate the disability-related need.

3. Where the disability is not apparent, the framework contemplates reliable disability-related information that verifies the disability, describes the accommodation needed, and shows the relationship between them.

An ESA request will often fall into the third situation when the disability is not apparent to the housing provider. That is why this is where documentation questions arise most, and where an overbroad verification form can ask for more than is necessary.

Step Four: Three Questions The Information Should Answer

Does the person have a disability within the meaning of the Act?

What accommodation is needed?

What is the relationship between the disability and the accommodation?

What the framework does not require is a diagnosis. The Joint Statement states that in most cases an individual's medical records or detailed information about the nature of a disability is not necessary. That is a general statement rather than an absolute bar, but a form asking for a diagnosis in every case is asking for more than it needs.

And the information is confidential. It should not be shared beyond those who need it to make or assess the decision, or where disclosure is required by law.

Step Five: The Letter Itself

This is one of the questions operators are likely to ask, and it is where the withdrawal matters most. The withdrawn 2020 notice addressed documentation obtained over the internet. That guidance is no longer active.

What remains is the Joint Statement's language. Verification may come from the individual in some circumstances, or from a doctor or other medical professional, a peer support group, a non-medical service agency, or a reliable third party who is in a position to know about the individual's disability.

Two words in that sentence carry the weight: reliable, and in a position to know.

Which gives a provider a principled question to ask about any letter, however it was obtained: does it come from someone in a position to know about this person's disability, and is it reliable?

It does not give a provider a basis for rejecting letters by category. A letter is not unreliable simply because a consultation happened remotely, and a letter is not reliable simply because it is on letterhead.

Where the information is insufficient or unclear, asking for clarification can help determine whether the documentation provides the information necessary to evaluate the request.

The relevant question is whether the information is reliable and sufficient for the provider to evaluate the request, not simply what format the letter takes.

Then Check Your State

Some states have specific requirements governing emotional support animal documentation. California is the clearest example of how different they can be.

California's AB 468, effective 1 January 2022 and now codified at Health and Safety Code § 122318, restricts when a health care practitioner may provide documentation relating to an individual's need for an emotional support dog. The current provision sets requirements concerning the practitioner's licensure, the client-provider relationship, clinical evaluation, and the contents of the documentation. The provision has since been amended, so the current text of § 122318 should be checked rather than relying on the original 2021 bill text.

Two limits on how it applies.

1. It covers emotional support dogs. The request at the top of this post is for a cat, and the statute's documentation requirements are framed around dogs.

2. And it regulates the practitioner, not the housing provider. It sets conditions on when documentation may be issued. It does not itself state that a housing provider must reject a letter that falls short. A related section of the same Act, § 122319, states that nothing in it is to be construed to restrict or change existing federal and state law concerning reasonable accommodation and equal access to housing. The reasonable accommodation analysis continues under the Fair Housing Act and California's own fair housing law.

What it can do is inform the reliability question in Step Five. Whether a letter was issued in circumstances the state's own law contemplates is relevant information about whether it is reliable. How much weight it carries in a particular decision is a question to take advice on.

The wider point is the one to hold onto. State rules on this vary in scope, subject and effect. Where state law applies, its requirements need to be checked separately, and the current text read rather than summarised.

Step Six: Decide, And Say So

If you approve, confirm it in writing, including that no pet fee or pet deposit applies.

The Joint Statement states that housing providers may not require persons with disabilities to pay extra fees or deposits as a condition of receiving a reasonable accommodation, and its own example on that point is an assistance animal.

What you can still expect after approval. The resident remains subject to the ordinary terms of the tenancy, and the Joint Statement states that where an animal causes damage, the provider may charge for it or deduct it from the standard security deposit if it is the provider's practice to assess tenants for damage they cause.

If you deny, the decision should rest on a legally recognised reason, such as failure to establish a disability-related need, undue financial and administrative burden, fundamental alteration, or direct threat based on an individualised assessment of reliable objective evidence.

And a refusal on reasonableness grounds is not the end. The Joint Statement says the provider should discuss whether an alternative accommodation would meet the need, and must grant one that would and is reasonable.

Step Seven: Keep The Record

The withdrawal changed the documentation landscape: there is no longer an active HUD notice you can point to as the framework you followed.

What supports the decision later is the file. The date the request arrived. What was asked for and why. What was received. What was decided, on what ground, and whether an alternative was discussed. Who decided.

A decision that was right at the time and unexplained two years later is in no better position than one that was wrong. Holding that record against the unit rather than in an inbox is what makes it retrievable when someone asks.

What Did Not Change 

The obligation. The Fair Housing Act and 24 CFR 100.204 are unchanged.

The fee position. The Joint Statement's statement on fees and deposits remains published, and nothing about the withdrawal authorises charging a pet fee for an accommodated animal.

State and local law. Assistance animal statutes were not withdrawn by HUD's action and may impose additional requirements.

And what comes next. HUD's withdrawal notice says replacement guidance may be issued where necessary and appropriate. Until then, the regulation and applicable law provide the operative legal framework, while the 2004 Joint Statement remains publicly available as technical assistance.

FAQ

1. Does an ESA request have to be in writing?
No. The 2004 Joint Statement says a request may be made orally or in writing, need not use particular words, and may be made by someone acting on the resident's behalf.

2. Can I require residents to use my form?
Forms are useful, but the Joint Statement says a provider may not refuse to consider a request because the resident did not follow the provider's own procedure.

3. How long do I have to respond?
There is no fixed period. The Joint Statement says providers should respond promptly and that undue delay may be deemed a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

4. Can I ask for a diagnosis?
The Joint Statement says that in most cases medical records or detailed information about the nature of a disability are not necessary. The information should answer whether the person has a disability, what accommodation is needed, and the relationship between them.

5. Can I reject a letter obtained online?
Not by category. The Joint Statement contemplates verification from a reliable third party in a position to know about the individual's disability. The relevant question is whether the information is reliable and sufficient to evaluate the request. Where state law has specific documentation requirements, those need to be checked separately.

Sources: 24 CFR 100.204, Reasonable accommodations; 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B); Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair Housing Act, May 2004, which is technical assistance rather than binding authority, for the provisions on how requests are made, promptness, the inquiry framework, verification sources, confidentiality, fees and deposits, damage, grounds for denial and alternative accommodations; California AB 468 (2021–2022), Emotional support animals, California Health and Safety Code § 122318, for the documentation requirements applying to health care practitioners in relation to emotional support dogs, as subsequently amended, and § 122319, for the provision preserving existing reasonable accommodation and equal access housing law; HUD's Notice of Withdrawal of Guidance Documents dated 17 September 2025, and the Federal Register notification published 6 April 2026, under which FHEO 2020-01 and FHEO Notice 2013-01 were withdrawn. State law on emotional support animal documentation varies and should be checked for each jurisdiction. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act imposes additional obligations on recipients of federal financial assistance. This article describes general concepts and is not legal advice. Confirm your position with counsel before responding to a specific request.