When Waltham Forest offered Mrs Bano a flat in Derby, it told her that its duty to house her would end whether she accepted or refused. The offer letter omitted information the council was required to give. The question was when she could challenge that omission. The Supreme Court held that the letter itself contained a reviewable decision. Later correspondence confirming the council’s position did not give her a fresh opportunity to challenge it.
Waltham Forest accepted the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 after Mrs Bano and her two children lost their home. The council placed them in temporary accommodation in Newham. The Court applied the statutory provisions governing her application, made in 2017.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Section 193(7AA) provides that the authority shall cease to be subject to the duty if the applicant, having been informed in writing of specified matters, accepts or refuses a private rented sector offer. Those matters include the possible consequences of acceptance or refusal, the right to request a review of suitability, and, except in a restricted case, the effect under section 195A of a further application within two years of acceptance. Before approving the offer, the authority must be satisfied that the accommodation is suitable.
The Derby offer
On 11 June 2020 the council emailed an offer of a three-bedroom flat in Derby. It explained why it considered the property suitable and told Mrs Bano she could seek a review even if she accepted it. But its explanation of what would happen if she became homeless again within two years was incomplete. It omitted the protection under section 195A(2) for a tenant whose valid section 21 notice had expired.
Mrs Bano’s daughter told the council the family could not move to Derby. It was common ground that Mrs Bano refused the offer. The 21-day period for requesting a review expired on 2 July 2020. She did not make a valid request in time.
The council later told Mrs Bano to leave the Newham accommodation. In 2023 her solicitors argued that the omission meant the housing duty had never ended. The council accepted that a timely review on that ground would have succeeded, but declined to extend time. Mrs Bano sought judicial review of its continuing refusal to house her.
By the time of the Supreme Court hearing, Mrs Bano had obtained a council tenancy. The appeal was academic for her, but the Court heard it because the same questions of statutory interpretation were likely to arise in other cases.
Review or judicial review
Section 202 allows an applicant to request a council review of decisions about the housing duty owed or the suitability of an offer. The applicant ordinarily has 21 days from notification, although the council may extend time. Section 204 then gives a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law. The availability of that statutory route mattered because judicial review is ordinarily a remedy of last resort.
Mrs Bano argued that the letter merely announced an intention. On her reading, the council had to make and notify a further decision after her response. The High Court accepted that reading and held that she lacked an alternative remedy. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision.
The duty ends automatically
Lord Stephens and Lady Rose, with whom Lord Reed, Lord Sales and Lord Hamblen agreed, held that section 193(7AA) means what it says. The duty ceases if the applicant accepts or refuses a private rented sector offer after written notice of the required matters. Parliament did not say that the authority must decide, determine or be satisfied that acceptance or refusal has occurred, or notify any such later decision. Those words should not be read in.
Section 193(5), dealing with other accommodation, does require the authority to notify the applicant that it regards the duty as ended. Subsections (7) and (7AA) do not. Amendments made by the Localism Act 2011 had also removed post-refusal decision and notification requirements for Part 6 offers. There was no reason to imply them for private rented offers.
The distinction is between making an offer and accepting or refusing it. The letter notified Mrs Bano of a present decision about what would happen on her response. The statutory consequence followed when she refused. If the letter had gone astray, the position would have been different. An applicant cannot accept or refuse an offer they have never received. The Court did not need to decide the general application of the statutory rule about postal service.
The warning that discharge was a “possible” consequence did not leave the council free to choose whether its duty ended. A review might establish that the property was unsuitable or that another statutory condition was missing. That is why the council’s decision could still be challenged.
What could be reviewed
Mrs Bano could have challenged both the suitability of the property and the decision about the duty under section 202(1)(b) and (g). The incomplete information in the letter was a ground for review. It did not deprive the letter of its character as a decision.
The Court of Appeal had also treated later council letters as reviewable confirmations. The Supreme Court disagreed. Allowing a fresh review as of right each time a council restated its position would defeat the 21-day limit and bypass its discretion to extend time. A genuinely new decision might itself be reviewable, but would not reopen the question whether the original duty had ceased.
Verdict: The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Mrs Bano’s appeal. She had a suitable alternative remedy under section 202. The later letters did not restart the time for challenging the original decision.
Source: R (on the application of Bano) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] UKSC 22
