Bedroom tax ruled unlawful

The under-occupancy penalty, also known as the ‘bedroom tax’, is unlawful, the Court of Appeal has held.

The court dealt with two appeals together, in R (oao Rutherford) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] EWCA Civ 29. The first concerns a woman, “A”, who is the victim of severe domestic violence and whose fortified home was installed with a “safe room” by the police under the “sanctuary scheme” policy to protect her and her son from an abusive ex-partner. The Department of Work and Pensions had assessed the safe room as a third room and reduced her housing benefit by 14%. According to A’s solicitor, nearly 5% of households using the sanctuary scheme have been affected by the bedroom tax.

The court held that the bedroom tax policy unlawfully discriminates against women and domestic violence victims.

Rebekah Carrier, solicitor at Hopkin Murray Beskine, who acted for A, said: “Our client’s life is at risk and she is terrified.

“She lives in a property which has been specially adapted by the police, at great expense, to protect her and her child.  The prospect of having to another property (where she will not have any of these protections) or take in a lodger has loomed large for her during the three years it has taken this case to come to the Court of Appeal.”

The second appeal, brought by Paul and Susan Rutherford and their severely disabled grandson Warren, concerned the impact of the policy on seriously disabled children who need overnight care. The couple also have disabilities and require the help of carers overnight. A third room in the couple’s specially adapted three-bedroom bungalow used for storing medical equipment and as a room for carers was assessed as under-occupied.

The current regulations allow for an additional bedroom if a disabled adult requires overnight care but not for a disabled child in the same situation. The court found that this unlawfully discriminates against disabled children and cannot be justified.

Mike Spencer, solicitor at the Child Poverty Action Group, who acts for the Rutherfords, said: “It is absurd to have a situation where children like Warren might have to go into residential care at vast cost to the taxpayer because their families cannot pay for the housing they need.”