Homelessness duties in the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has handed down its judgment in R (Bano) v Waltham Forest LBC [2026] UKSC 22. The case concerns how duties owed by local authorities to homeless people under s.193(2), Housing Act 1996, come to an end. In particular, do they come to an end automatically once certain statutory conditions are satisfied or does the local authority have to reach a decision that the duty has ended and notify the homeless person of that conclusion?

The Supreme Court holds that automatic discharge without a further decision happens in three scenarios (ss.193(6), (7) and (7AA)) but a further decision is required in one case (s.193(5)). Importantly, however, it stresses the practical importance of ensuring that homeless people are told of the consequences of the ending of any duty, since it is notification of those consequences which triggers the right to challenge the authority.

The judgment also notes that the prescribed information which must be given to homeless persons is incomplete and does not fully advise homeless persons of their rights. It notes that it would be “good practice” for local authorities to cure this statutory oddity by voluntarily giving homeless persons proper information about their full range of rights.

Justin Bates KC, Sian McGibbon and Claudia Hyde acted pro bono for Shelter. They were instructed by Freshfields, also acting pro bono.