On 22 July 2026, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in R (on the application of Bano) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] UKSC 22.
The issue concerned how the duties owed by local housing authorities to homeless people can be brought to an end, so as to ensure that homeless applicants are fully informed of their rights and can exercise rights to review under Part 7 Housing Act 1996.
The Court of Appeal had previously decided that the main housing duty cease automatically when a homeless person owed that duty accepts or refuses a suitable offer of accommodation. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision and dismissed the appeal, save that it decided the Court of Appeal had been wrong to decide that subsequent communications from Waltham Forest could have triggered a request for a review.
The Supreme Court’s judgment provides clarity for homeless applicants and local housing authorities alike: the main housing duty at s.193(2) Housing Act 1996 ends when an applicant accepts or refuses a suitable offer of accommodation, and the offer letter should explain to the applicant that she has the right to request two reviews: of the suitability of the offer and of the decision that the duty has come to an end.
If the applicant is genuinely considering whether to accept the offer, the local housing authority would be expected to extend the 21 days in which she can request a review.
The judgment, press summary and associated documents can be read here.
Liz Davies KC, Adrian Marshall Williams and Gráinne Mellon represented Ms Bano, instructed by James Harrison at Edwards Duthie Shamash. They were assisted by pupils Jamie McGowan and Anna Brennan.
