Key Facts
- •Sabhya Bano, a single mother, was initially provided temporary accommodation by the London Borough of Waltham Forest (LHA).
- •The LHA offered Ms. Bano a Private Rented Sector Offer (PRSO) in Derby, which she refused.
- •The LHA subsequently claimed its duty to provide accommodation had ended.
- •Ms. Bano challenged this decision through judicial review, arguing the LHA failed to comply with statutory requirements and did not make a valid decision ending its duty.
- •The LHA conceded that its initial offer was not compliant with Norton v Haringey LBC [2022] EWCA Civ 1340.
- •Ms. Bano remained in her temporary accommodation.
Legal Principles
A local housing authority (LHA) has a duty to secure accommodation for eligible applicants under s.193 of the Housing Act 1996.
Housing Act 1996, s.193
The LHA's duty under s.193(2) ends only under specific circumstances, such as acceptance or refusal of a valid PRSO.
Housing Act 1996, s.193(7AA)
A PRSO must comply with the notification requirements of s.193(7AB) and s.195A, as clarified in Norton v Haringey LBC [2022] EWCA Civ 1340.
Housing Act 1996, s.193(7AB), s.195A; Norton v Haringey LBC
The LHA must make a decision that the duty has ended following an applicant's election (acceptance or refusal) of a PRSO.
Warsame v Hounslow LBC (2000) WLR 696; Ravichandran v London Borough of Lewisham [2010] EWCA 10755
Judicial review is a remedy of last resort; alternative statutory review processes should be exhausted first.
R (Archer) v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 1021; R (Glencore Energy UK Ltd) v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1716
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review granted.
The claim met the standard arguability test.
Declaration that the LHA continues to owe Ms. Bano a duty under s.193 of the Housing Act 1996.
The LHA's offer was invalid, and it failed to make a decision ending its duty after Ms. Bano's refusal. The statutory conditions for ending the duty were not met.