header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 January 2017 / Admas Habteslasie
Issue: 7731 / Categories: Features , Housing
printer mail-detail

Room for improvement

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7731_habteslasie

The Supreme Court held that the bedroom tax is discriminatory, but only in part, notes Admas Habteslasie
  • Majority uphold secretary of state’s ability to rely on specified discretionary payments for people with disabilities in general.
  • Distinctions regarding two classes of claimant are unjustifiable.
  • Scheme does not breach government’s equality obligations.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision in R (Carmichael and Rourke) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKSC 58, [2016] All ER (D) 56 (Nov) on 9 November 2016. The decision concerned a number of appeals against the controversial “bedroom tax” imposed by the 2010-2015 coalition government by the insertion of a new reg B13 into the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006. Regulation B13 reduced the housing benefit payable to claimants where the claimant lived in a house where the number of bedrooms in the home exceeded the number to which they were entitled. Such claimants were, however, able to seek the payment of housing benefit without this reduction by applying through a discretionary housing payment scheme (DHP).

Main question

The

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Laytons ETL—Maximilian Kraitt

Commercial firm strengthens real estate disputes team with associate hire

Switalskis—three appointments

Switalskis—three appointments

Firm appoints three directors to board

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Browne Jacobson—seven promotions

Six promoted to partner and one to legal director across UK and Ireland offices

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll