Nick Bano is a specialist in housing law, and a widely-recognised author and campaigner on housing rights. He is a co-author of one of the leading textbooks on homelessness law, and acted as counsel to the Renters’ Reform Coalition during the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Nick has represented tenants and homeless people in many of the most important housing law cases in recent years. He works closely with renters’ unions, housing campaigners and policymakers. The legal directories consistently recognise his expertise in this field, as well as his inventiveness and commitment to his clients.
Housing Law
Overview
Nick has been involved in bringing many of the most important housing cases in recent years.
He has acted in cases concerning discrimination in social housing and homelessness waiting lists (R (RR) v Enfield [2026] HLR 8, CA; R (Begum) v Tower Hamlets [2026] EWCA Civ 1049; R (Willott) v Eastbourne [2024] HLR 26 (Admin)), the threshold for defending possession proceedings (Global 100 v Laleva [2022] 1 WLR 1406, CA), the Public Sector Equality Duty (TM v Metropolitan [2022] 1 WLR 2161, CA; Forward v Aldwyck [2020] 1 WLR 584, CA), discrimination against homelessness applicants (Adesotu v Lewisham [2019] 1 WLR 567, CA; RZH v Sutton [2025] HLR 35 (Admin)), the court’s jurisdiction in homelessness cases (James v Hertsmere [2020] 1 WLR 3606, CA), overcoming ‘intentional’ homelessness (Bullale v Westminster [2021] HLR 21, CA), compensation claims against rogue landlords (Godagama v Hanson; D v Ning He) and the technical requirements for the service of notices to quit (Gateway Housing v Ali [2021] 1 WLR 289).
In housing judicial reviews, Nick has been instructed in settled challenges concerning the inadequate provision of single-gender accommodation for survivors of domestic violence, a local authority’s responsibility for transferring domestic abuse survivors from their housing association homes, a scheme to divert homeless families away from social housing and towards private renting, and the lawfulness of several social housing allocation schemes.
Homelessness law is the core of Nick’s practice. The legal directories note his reputation for raising interesting and creative arguments on behalf of homelessness applicants.
In possession cases, Nick’s background in criminal defence law makes him an excellent trial advocate. His cross-examinations of the landlords’ witnesses in TM v Metropolitan and Forward v Aldwyck, for example, led to findings of breaches of the Equality Act, which were central to the decisions on appeal. His previous work as a law centre caseworker means that he is excellent at engaging with the tenants he represents, with the legal directories noting that “clients feel that Nick is really fighting their corner”.
He is a co-author of Housing Allocations and Homelessness: Law and Practice, and the author of Against Landlords: How to Solve the Housing Crisis (2024), and A Practical Guide to the Public Sector Equality in Housing (2023).
Nick is often featured in the media as a commentator on housing and related issues. He frequently speaks at public events, and gives guest lectures and seminars at various universities. He is always happy to receive invitations to speak and collaborate.
Contact Nick
Administrative and Public Law
Overview
Nick has considerable experience of appearing in judicial review claims against local authorities and government departments, as well as in public law challenges in housing matters in the County Court.
Notable Cases
Past notable cases can be viewed below. Click here to see a list of recent notable cases.
Interim relief – procedure
Nolson v Stevenage [2020] EWCA Civ 379
After the Administrative Court had dismissed a renewed oral application for interim relief (holding that it had no jurisdiction), Nick was instructed in an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was initially disposed of on the papers but Nick persuaded Hickinbottom LJ to list the matter for an application to re-open the appeal, given the importance of the point. The application was dismissed as academic, but the Court of Appeal provided important guidance on procedure.
Rationality challenge against a children’s services
R (AA) v Southwark [2020] EWHC 2477
A successful judicial review challenging the lawfulness of the local authority’s assessment of a destitute family under the Children Act 1989.
Discrimination challenge against a local authority
R (FB) v Camden (2020)
A judicial review claim challenging the way in which Camden Council accommodates homeless women who have fled domestic violence. Nick successfully obtained interim relief, and the parties agreed a settlement shortly before the final hearing (Women’s Aid Federation of England intervened). Nick was led by Stephanie Harrison QC.
Public law principles in County Court claims
TM v Metropolitan [2020] EWHC 311
Following the recent decisions in Forward v Aldwyck and L&Q v Patrick (cases in which Nick appeared), the High Court reviewed the principles applicable to public law defences in housing possession claims. TM concerned the correct approach to section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act where the court has identified a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Retrospective ratification of ultra vires acts
James v Hersmere BC [2020] 1 WLR 3606
Nick appeared at first instance in a case that where the local authority had failed to properly contract-out its functions because the contract was granted by an official who was not entitled, under the scheme of delegation, to do so. The court at first instance held that the ultra vires act had been retrospectively ratified by the leader of the council just a few days before the hearing. The Court of Appeal considered the public law point, as well as a broader issue about jurisdiction.
Successful allocations challenge
R (Embalo & Others) v Lambeth
A number of homeless families in Lambeth instructed Nick to bring a challenge to the councils ‘Temp2Settled’ scheme, which had resulted in a great many homeless households being removed from the council housing waiting list after they had accepted private sector offers. The claim was settled, with Lambeth agreeing to amend their scheme and add the affected households back on to the waiting list.
Successful challenge to an NRPF policy
R (AA) v Essex; R (CO) v Essex (2019)
Two simultaneous challenges to Essex Council’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy on the grounds that it made no provision for Zambrano carers, imposed unlawful residence criteria and provided unlawfully low rates of subsistence. The claims were settled (after the Administrative Court granted interim relief and permission) when Essex withdrew its policy.
Interim relief against two public bodies
R (FA) v Redbridge & SSHD [2018] EWHC 2189 (Admin)
Nick succeeded in two contested interim relief applications concerning the application of section 122 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (whether the local authority had reasonable grounds for believing that the Home Office could be required to provide asylum support). At the second hearing, interim relief was ordered against both the local authority and the Home Office.
Contact Nick
Community Care Law
Overview
Nick is frequently involved in bringing claims relating to children’s rights and adult social care. He has an excellent grasp of the eligibility criteria and substantive rights under the Children Act and Care Act, as well as a strong tactical insight into local authority decision making.
Notable Cases
Past notable cases can be viewed below. Click here to see a list of recent notable cases.
Section 17 and credibility
R (AA) v Southwark [2020] EWHC 2477
The Administrative Court considered another challenge in the ‘culture of disbelief’ line of cases (where local authorities decide that the family has failed to prove the negative of its destitution). Nick successfully represented the Claimant.
Discontinuing support
R (SS) v Greenwich (2019)
Nick successfully obtained interim relief on the papers for a destitute family that had been sleeping in a disability mobility vehicle. The case raised the unsettled question of whether (or in what circumstances) a local authority may stop providing section 17 support while the family remains in need. Edis J said that the claim “may raise some complex legal issues”. Permission for judicial review was later granted.
Successful challenge to an NRPF policy
R (AA) v Essex; R (CO) v Essex (2019)
Two simultaneous challenges to Essex Council’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy on the grounds that it made no provision for Zambrano carers, imposed unlawful residence criteria and provided unlawfully low rates of subsistence. The claims were settled (after the Administrative Court granted interim relief and permission) when Essex withdrew its policy.
Interim relief against two public bodies
R (FA) v Redbridge & SSHD [2018] EWHC 2189 (Admin)
Nick succeeded in two contested interim relief applications concerning the application of section 122 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (whether the local authority had reasonable grounds for believing that the Home Office could be required to provide asylum support). At the second hearing, interim relief was ordered against both the local authority and the Home Office.
