Homelessness: Cessation of duty – the UKSC speaks!

In R(Bano) v Waltham Forest LBC [2026] UKSC 22, the Supreme Court has found that (under English law), where an applicant for homelessness assistance is made an offer of waiting list accommodation or a private rented sector offer (under s 193(6) and (7AA) respectively), the duty ceases at the point of acceptance or refusal of the offer without an express decision that the duty has ceased.  It has been assumed that the authority had to make an express decision that the duty ceased – that was my impression of the law that followed Warsame v Hounslow LBC (not available online but discussed in Bano) and Ravichandran v Lewisham LBC – but that is now incorrect.  Further, that is also incorrect (surprisingly) even if the authority has failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the offer (as Waltham Forest had here).  The correct approach is that the 21 days for the request for a review runs from the date of notification of the offer letter.

Although made under English law, Bano may be taken to be applicable to Wales – consider, for example, when the duty comes to an end in Wales under section 76, Housing (Wales) Act 2014.

Importantly, that means that the 21 day period for requesting a review runs form the date of the notification of the offer, and, “… it will strictly be a review of decision that the offer will, once the applicant responds, result in cessation of the authority’s duty” ([76]).  This leads to the important observation that if the applicant doesn’t know about the offer (which, in my experience happens more often than it should), that doesn’t matter for the 21 day period – the applicant will have to request a review out of time when they do find out about the offer.  I am perplexed by that suggestion throughout the judgment.  The Supreme Court appear to assume that the authorities will exercise their discretion to conduct the review out of time, but the jurisprudence on this gives authorities wide latitude and I expect more JRs on that point.  They say:

“89. In our judgment in order for the duty to cease under subsections (7) or (7AA), the applicant must have received the letter and have been notified of the decision in the letter. That follows from the fact that the duty does not cease automatically on the making of the offer but on the acceptance or refusal of the offer. There cannot be acceptance or refusal if the applicant does not know of the offer being made and if the offer letter has not been received, the conditions in the subsection for the duty to have ceased will not have been met. … The intention is for the offer to be either accepted or refused which necessarily requires receipt of the letter.

90. As a result, it may be that the first occasion when the applicant finds out that the authority regards the housing duty as having come to an end will be when the authority asks the applicant to leave their current accommodation or otherwise declines any further assistance. At that stage the applicant will become aware of the missing offer and can request an extension of time under section 202(3) to review under section 202(1)(b) the decision in the offer letter that the authority was no longer subject to the main housing duty on the refusal of the offer. If an extension of time to request a review is granted because the applicant had not in fact been notified of the authority’s decision, then the review would need to be decided in the applicant’s favour for the same reason. If the letter has gone astray, the authority would continue to be subject to the main housing duty. We reject the submission that a situation where the offer letter has gone astray leads to results which are ‘unworkable or impracticable’.”

I am not sure I quite follow the reasoning here, but it does seem to suggest that the offer letter is the cessation of duty decision and the ground for review is that it was not received and therefore could not be accepted or refused.  That seems fundamentally unfair, especially given the requirement of acceptance/rejection – it is to be noted that Waltham Forest here said that, if Ms Bano didn’t attend the appointment to view the property, they would assume that the property was being refused.  What if that is not in an offer letter?  I don’t think it matters for the purposes of cessation of duty.

This all makes the 21 day review request provision quite hard for applicants, in terms of making their decisions on something which is probably one of the hardest decisions they will have to make.  Would it be kinder and better for procedural fairness (cf Bano at [94]-[96]) for us to require a cessation of duty email, especially given the often fraught decision as to whether an applicant has, in fact, refused an offer?