Discharge of Duty: It’s Totally Automatic
Housing, Judicial Review & Public Law
Supreme Court decides that cessation of Part 7 duty after offer of accommodation is “automatic”
16 years and 20 days ago, the Court of Appeal rejected as “misconceived” the submission of Andrew Arden QC, leading Matt Hutchings as a junior, that, following amendments made by the Homelessness Act 2002, s.193 of the Housing Act 1996 now provided for automatic cessation of the main housing duty if the applicant refused a final offer of accommodation under Part 6: Ravichandran v London Borough of Lewisham [2011] PTSR 117, paras 29 – 30.
Today, in R (Bano) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] UKSC 22, the Supreme Court in effect accepts that submission, deciding that, on the correct construction of s.193 of the Housing Act 1996, upon the acceptance or refusal of a private rented sector offer, the main housing duty ceases automatically without the need for any further decision or notification to the applicant. They reason that the same automatic discharge follows acceptance or refusal of a final offer of accommodation under Part 6.
Key Takeaways
The lead judgment was delivered by Lord Stevens and Lady Rose: see here.
- The clear meaning of s.193(7AA) is that, if an applicant accepts or refuses a private rented sector offer, then as a matter of law the local housing authority ceases to be subject to main housing duty without the need for any further decision or notification to the applicant (para 97).
- The same applies to final offers of accommodation under Part 6 (paras 72 – 73).
- An offer letter informing the applicant that the duty will cease upon acceptance or refusal is itself the decision that the duty will cease. Hence the applicant has the right to request a review of such an offer letter under s.202(1)(b) (paras 75 – 76, 101).
- The 21 day time limit for requesting a review of cessation of duty runs from the date on which the applicant is notified of the offer letter (para 100).
- If the applicant fails to request a review of the offer letter in time, then (subject to any extension of time for requesting a review under s.202(3)) the applicant cannot subsequently challenge the cessation of duty (para 109).
- The answer to cases in which the applicant does not receive the offer letter is that this is a reason to extend time for the review and to uphold the review of the cessation of duty (paras 88 – 89).
Matt Hutchings KC leading Millie Polimac of Five Paper, instructed by Daryl Bigwood of Cobb Warren, represented the Social Housing Law Association and, instructed by Mark Cooper of the South London Legal Partnership, represented 14 London boroughs who intervened in the Supreme Court.
