Background
In 2017, the London Borough of Waltham Forest accepted that it owed the “main housing duty” under the Housing Act 1996 to the appellant, Mrs. Sabhya Bano, a homeless single parent. The council placed her and her children in temporary accommodation in Newham. In June 2020, the council sent Mrs. Bano a letter offering her a private rented flat in Derby. The letter stated this was a “private rented sector offer” intended to end the council’s housing duty, and that the duty would cease whether she accepted or refused it.
The letter also informed Mrs. Bano of her right to request a review of the accommodation’s suitability within 21 days. Through her daughter, Mrs. Bano refused the offer, stating the family could not move to Derby. The council replied, confirming its duty was discharged. Mrs. Bano did not request a statutory review within the 21-day time limit. She later challenged the council via judicial review, arguing that the housing duty had not legally ended because the council never issued a formal, separate decision confirming the cessation of its duty, which she could then appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mrs. Bano’s appeal. The Court held that under section 193(7AA) of the Housing Act 1996, a local housing authority’s main duty automatically ceases when an applicant accepts or refuses a valid “private rented sector offer.” The statute does not require the authority to make a second, separate decision that the duty has ended and then notify the applicant of that decision.
The Court clarified that the offer letter itself is the key trigger. It constitutes the reviewable decision. An applicant who disagrees with the offer—either because the accommodation is unsuitable or because the offer itself is procedurally flawed—must exercise their right to request a review under section 202 of the Act. The 21-day time limit for requesting this review begins upon notification of the offer. Because Mrs. Bano had not requested a review within this period, she had lost her statutory remedy and could not use judicial review as an alternative path to challenge the council’s actions.
Key Takeaways
- A council’s main duty to house a homeless person automatically ends when the person accepts or refuses a valid “private rented sector offer” that meets the requirements of the Housing Act 1996.
- The council is not required to issue a separate, subsequent decision confirming that its duty has ended.
- The offer letter itself is the reviewable decision, and the 21-day statutory time limit for an applicant to request a review starts from the date they receive that letter.
- Failing to use the specific statutory review procedure within the time limit will generally bar a later challenge by way of judicial review, which is a remedy of last resort.
Why It Matters
This judgment provides significant clarity on the procedural end-point of a local authority’s main housing duty in England. It confirms that the process is automatic upon a valid offer and the applicant’s response, streamlining the administrative process for councils. The ruling places a clear onus on homeless applicants and their advisors to act quickly upon receiving a housing offer, as the 21-day window to challenge its suitability or validity is strict and begins immediately.
For applicants, the decision highlights the critical importance of seeking legal advice and lodging a formal review request without delay if an offer is considered unsuitable for any reason. For housing authorities, it reinforces the need to ensure their offer letters are fully compliant with all statutory requirements, as any defect (such as the one identified in the *Norton* case) could render the offer invalid and prevent the housing duty from ending.