Sabhya Bano, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest

Acceptance of the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 continues until it is validly ended through a statutory route. Where a local housing authority uses a private rented sector offer, it must comply with the statutory conditions and, after the applicant accepts or refuses the offer, make a decision that those conditions have been satisfied and the duty has ended. An offer expressing only a prospective intention is insufficient. The absence of an ending decision means that time for judicial review does not begin to run from the offer. Judicial review remains discretionary and ordinarily a remedy of last resort, but a statutory review is not an alternative remedy where no operative ending decision exists.

The claimant had been accepted as owed the main homelessness duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. In 2020 the defendant made her a private rented sector offer of accommodation in Derby, which she refused. The defendant accepted that the offer did not comply with the statutory requirements identified in Norton v Haringey LBC and therefore did not itself end the duty.

The claimant sought judicial review after the defendant later maintained that the duty had been discharged and refused to treat her correspondence as a valid review request. The issues were whether the defendant had made an effective decision ending the duty, whether the claim was out of time, and whether alternative statutory remedies or delay justified refusal of relief.

1. Permission and relief. The claim was arguable and permission was granted. A declaration was made that the defendant continued to owe the claimant the section 193 duty.
2. Statutory ending conditions. The main duty continues until it is ended through one of the routes prescribed by section 193. A private rented sector offer must comply with sections 193(7AA), (7AB) and (7AC). The defendant accepted that its offer was defective and that the duty continued after it.
3. Need for an ending decision. Warsame v Hounslow LBC and Ravichandran v London Borough of Lewisham establish the distinction between a prospective intention that an offer will end the duty and a later decision confirming that the statutory conditions have been satisfied. After the applicant’s acceptance or refusal, the authority must reach an evaluative conclusion that the duty has ended. That decision is reviewable. The June offer letter expressed an intention to end the duty and was not an operative ending decision. The October letter concerned refusal of temporary accommodation pending a suitability review and likewise did not end the main duty.
4. Automatic ending and time. The duty does not end automatically merely because an offer is refused. The authority must assess whether the relevant offer, acceptance or refusal occurred and whether the statutory conditions were met. Since no operative ending decision existed, no decision triggered the judicial review time limit. The delay and finality arguments therefore did not arise in the manner advanced.
5. Alternative remedy. Judicial review is ordinarily a remedy of last resort, but statutory review and county court appeal were not suitable alternatives because there was no operative ending decision to review. A fresh homelessness application would not provide an alternative to recognition that the existing duty continued.
6. The case was confined to its distinctive facts, including the absence of any post-election ending decision and the claimant’s continued occupation of the accommodation.