R (on the application of Bano) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] UKSC 22 clarifies the council’s Housing Act 1996 duty to provide accommodation to homeless people in their district, known as its main housing duty, specifically that the duty ends when the homeless applicant refuses a suitable offer.
Waltham Forest accepted in February 2017 that it owed the main housing duty to Sabhya Bano and argued it discharged that duty when it made her an offer of suitable private rented accommodation, a flat in Derby, in June 2020. It contended she could have asked for the offer to be reviewed, arguing the Derby flat was not suitable. However, she neither sought a review nor left her temporary accommodation to move into the flat.
Bano countered that the offer letter did not end the main housing duty. She argued Waltham Forest needed to make a definite decision that she had accepted or refused the accommodation offered, and notify her of that decision. She sought permission to bring a judicial review. Waltham Forest opposed on the basis she had an alternative remedy. Last week, the Supreme Court dismissed Bano’s appeal.
James Harrison, senior partner at Edwards Duthie Shamash Solicitors, acting for Bano, said the ruling was ‘a significant case’ that would strengthen procedural safeguards.
Harrison said: ‘The position following the judgment is that the main housing duty 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.’
The family accepted a three-bedroom property in Walthamstow last year.
