Supreme Court Clarifies How Local Authorities Must End Their Housing Duty to Homeless Applicants
On 22 July 2026, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in R (on the application of Bano) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] UKSC 22, providing important clarification on how local housing authorities must lawfully bring the main housing duty owed to homeless applicants to an end under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. The decision has significant implications for local authorities and homeless applicants across England.
Background to the Case
This judgment follows a long-running legal challenge brought on behalf of Ms Bano by Edwards Duthie Shamash Solicitors. Readers who have followed the case may wish to read our earlier article, UK Supreme Court Appeal, which explained how the appeal arose following the Court of Appeal’s decision and why the issues before the Supreme Court were of such wider importance for homelessness law.
The central question was whether a local authority’s housing duty ends automatically when a homeless applicant refuses a suitable offer of accommodation, or whether the authority must make a separate decision informing the applicant that the duty has ended.
What Did the Supreme Court Decide?
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, except 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 both homeless applicants and local housing authorities. 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 that 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.
“This judgment marks the conclusion of a significant case that will influence homelessness decision-making for years to come” – James Harrison
Why the Judgment Matters
The decision provides much-needed certainty for both local authorities and those seeking homelessness assistance. Housing authorities will now need to ensure their procedures comply with the Supreme Court’s guidance when ending the main housing duty.
For homeless applicants, the judgment strengthens important procedural safeguards by ensuring they receive clear notification of decisions and a meaningful opportunity to challenge them where appropriate.
Edwards Duthie Shamash’s Role in the Appeal
Edwards Duthie Shamash Solicitors is proud to have represented Ms Bano throughout these proceedings.
James Harrison of Edwards Duthie Shamash instructed Liz Davies KC, Adrian Marshall Williams and Gráinne Mellon of Garden Court Chambers, who represented Ms Bano before the Supreme Court. James Harrison said of the outcome “This judgment marks the conclusion of a significant case that will influence homelessness decision-making for years to come”.
Read Our Earlier Coverage
If you would like to understand how this important case developed before reaching the Supreme Court, you can also read our earlier article, UK Supreme Court Appeal, which follows the progress of Ms Bano’s case from the High Court through to the Supreme Court.
Speak to Our Housing Law Solicitors Today
If you are facing housing or homelessness issues, or need advice about your local authority’s duties to accommodate, our experienced Housing Law team at Edwards Duthie Shamash can help.
Contact us today for clear, practical advice and expert representation.
Housing and Social Welfare Frequently Asked Questions
A Private Rented Sector Offer (PRSO) is accommodation a council offers to a homeless household in the private rental market. Provided that it is a valid offer accepting a PRSO will end a council’s duty to house you. The position regarding refusal is less clear, as highlighted in Ms Bano’s Supreme Court appeal.
If an offer of temporary accommodation is refused there will need to be a separate decision to terminate the duty to house the applicant. In Ms Bano’s case the Court of Appeal decided that a separate decision is not required where the Council makes a Private Rented Sector Offer. The Supreme Court will decide whether this is correct.
If you refuse a PRSO, you may challenge the council’s decision or seek judicial review to argue that the duty to house you continues. Legal advice is essential to protect your rights.
You can appeal a council’s housing decision through internal reviews, the county court, or via judicial review. Cases may escalate to higher courts, including the Court of Appeal and, in rare cases, the UK Supreme Court.
A housing law case reaches the Supreme Court only if it raises important points of law affecting many people, such as the interpretation of local authority duties in homelessness law, like in Ms Bano’s appeal.