Supreme Court allows Shelter to intervene in case on ending of main housing duty

A Supreme Court panel comprising Lord Reed, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen, Lord Stephens and Lady Rose will hear the case of R (on the application of Bano) v London Borough of Waltham Forest on 17 March 2026.

The background to the case, as set out by the Supreme Court, is that on 13 December 2016, the appellant, Sabhya Bano, applied to the respondent council, the London Borough of Waltham Forest, for assistance as a homeless person under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (“HA 1996”).

The council accepted that it owed the appellant the “main housing duty” under section 193 HA 1996. This is a duty to provide temporary accommodation until such time as the duty is ended.

Waltham Forest explained that this duty would come to an end if Ms Bano refused a “private rented sector offer”.

In May 2017, the council arranged for the appellant to be provided with temporary accommodation in Newham.

On 11 June 2020, Waltham Forest sent the appellant a private rented sector offer of a flat in Derby.

The council explained in the letter that the offer would discharge its main housing duty, whether Ms Bano accepted or refused the offer.

The appellant refused the offer and remained in occupation of the property in Newham.

On 19 August 2020, the council sent a letter indicating that Ms Bano would have to leave the Newham property by 31 August 2020.

On 28 September 2020, Ms Bano requested that the council carry out a review of the suitability of the accommodation offered.

In a letter dated 7 October 2020, Waltham Forest refused this request because it had not been made in time.

In November 2022, the provider of the Newham property issued possession proceedings against the appellant.

Ms Bano wrote to Waltham Forest seeking its agreement that the main housing duty had not ended, which the council refused to provide.

Ms Bano issued a claim for judicial review of the respondent’s refusal on 5 September 2023.

In March 2024, Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, ruled in the appellant’s favour. However, Waltham Forest’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was allowed.

Lord Justice Newey found amongst other things atht the relevant legislation did not say an applicant must be told that the authority’s duty has terminated, and as section 193(7) of the 1996 Act is now framed, there is 'automatic discharge’ where an offer of accommodation under Part 6 is refused.

Ms Bano appealed to the Supreme Court.

Justin Bates KC, Siân McGibbon and Claudia Hyde of Landmark Chambers are acting pro bono for Shelter, instructed by James Roberts (partner), Molly Lewis (senior associate) and Akshaya Kalaiyalahan (associate) of Freshfields LLP. 

The Landmark Chambers barristers said: "The case raises important questions regarding the construction of the Housing Act 1996 and the procedural rights afforded to homelessness applicants under both the statutory scheme and requirements of procedural fairness."