Bedroom Tax ruled 'discriminatory' and 'unlawful' by Court of Appeal judges

The ruling follows a legal challenge by a domestic violence victim and the family of a disabled teenager

The Government’s so-called “Bedroom Tax” policy has been declared discriminatory and unlawful by the Court of Appeal.

Judges made the decision following a legal challenge against the Government by a domestic violence victim and the family of a disabled teenager.

The charge, which takes the form of a reduction in housing support for people with more than a certain number of bedrooms, was introduced in April 2013 to encourage people to move out of homes they are "under occupying".

It has since been criticised for causing poverty, disproportionally affecting the disabled, and hitting people who have nowhere suitable to move to.

The Department for Work and Pensions said it would appeal the decision in the Supreme Court – the UK’s highest and final appellate court.

One of the two successful appeals was brought by a woman identified as ‘A’ who had been a victim of domestic violence. Her home has been specially adapted to include a panic room.

Her lawyers claimed the policy discriminated against her because she would have to leave a room that had been adapted for her safety. Wheelchair users and disabled people have made similar claims.

The second successful appeal was brought by Paul and Susan Rutherford on behalf of their severely disabled grandson Warren.

Warren suffers from a rare genetic disorder and requires 24 hour care because he cannot walk, talk or feed himself.

The couple was hit by the bedroom tax because they have a room that is used for overnight carers and storing specialist medical equipment.

The court found the policy’s impact on disabled children was contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Both appears were being considered by the Court of Appeal because they had been rejected by the High Court.

Beth Grossman, head of policy at disability charity Scope, said the policy was inappropriate for people with disabilities and causing hardship for them.

“For the vast majority of disabled people these are not spare bedrooms, these are essential rooms," she said.
“Many people need a room for specialist equipment, or so that their disabled child can sleep separately from their siblings, or with a carer.

“We’ve spoken to disabled people who aren’t able to share a specially adapted bed with their partner, and have to sleep in a separate room. They’re being forced to move, or find the extra cash they don’t have to pay their rent.
“Life costs more if you are disabled. Scope research shows disabled people pay more for all kinds of everyday things – on average a premium of £550 per month. We should be looking at ways to bring costs down rather than ramping them up.”

Owen Smith MP, Labour’s Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, said the party had long argued against the “cruel” policy.

“This victory in the Court of Appeal is a massive blow to the Tories’ Bedroom Tax.  It provides a glimmer of hope for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been hit by this cruel policy,” he said.


“Labour has long argued that the Bedroom Tax is deeply unfair and discriminatory, which is why we have campaigned so hard against it.  Surely the time has now come for the Tories to discover a conscience, listen to the courts as well as the public, and scrap the hated Bedroom Tax.”


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bedroom-tax-ruled-discriminatory-by-court-of-appeal-judges-a6836331.html

Misleading title again

Excellent news and there are more cases in the pipeline still to come

Of course exceptional circumstances should be considered and if found to be valid and justifiable reasons for exemption then of course they should be allowed to get an extra room paid for if it really is because of a genuine 'need'!!!


Doesn't mean that anyone else should be allowed to have extra rooms paid for by taxpayer funded benefits!



There are plenty of people out there who are going to work every day and paying their taxes etc, and are having to live in a small rented room in shared house because that's all they can afford... so why should someone else be allowed to live in a nice large flat or house with spare rooms etc when they dont work and arent paying for it themselves but claiming benefits to pay for it, which are being paid for by many of the hard working people who can only afford a small room in shared house themselves!!!???



How is that fair!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Of course exceptional circumstances should be considered and if found to be valid and justifiable reasons for exemption then of course they should be allowed to get an extra room paid for if it really is because of a genuine 'need'!!!


Doesn't mean that anyone else should be allowed to have extra rooms paid for by taxpayer funded benefits!



There are plenty of people out there who are going to work every day and paying their taxes etc, and are having to live in a small rented room in shared house because that's all they can afford... so why should someone else be allowed to live in a nice large flat or house with spare rooms etc when they dont work and arent paying for it themselves but claiming benefits to pay for it, which are being paid for by many of the hard working people who can only afford a small room in shared house themselves!!!???



How is that fair!?

It's not - obviously.

The trouble is that if people in council property were able to get housing benefit for spare bedrooms, those in private rentals on housing allowance would want to be paid for spare rooms as well. I know some people on here have said that they already do, but I doubt that they'd be allowed to claim more than the capped rate.

Oh heaven forbid someone gets a few coppers more, or a couple of square feet more space

how fucking terribly evil

what a serious and decisive catastophe.

what a drain on the country

blithering idiots the lot of you (R/W ers)

mean scrooge like IDIOTS

you lot would strangle your own grandmother for tuppence

and the worst of it????


it makes no frigging difference to YOU

AT ALL........

Lord Foul wrote:Oh heaven forbid someone gets a few coppers more, or a couple of square feet more space

how fucking terribly evil

what a serious and decisive catastophe.

what a drain on the country

blithering idiots the lot of you (R/W ers)

mean scrooge like IDIOTS

you lot would strangle your own grandmother for tuppence

A couple of spare feet wouldn't really be classed as a bedroom, unless it contained a small doll's bed.

Housing benefit should never have been allowed to pay for larger properties than needed in the first place!!!


The fact that it did doesn't make it right or justify the continuation of it!!!


Why should hard working taxpayers be limited to living in smaller places than they need because of expense while paying for unemployed people to have the luxury of more space than they need!?



I'd like to have a nice big house with a few spare rooms and a garden... but even though I work and earn fairly good money... I can't afford it!!!


Why should my tax money go to paying for unemployed people to have it!?