Court rules ‘bedroom tax’ discriminates against domestic abuse victim and carers

A victim of domestic violence and the grandparents of a severely disabled teenager have won the latest round of their challenges against the lawfulness of the so-called ”bedroom tax”.

Three judges at the Court of Appeal in London ruled in their favour on Wednesday following a hearing in November.

One case, brought by A – a single mother living in a three-bedroom council house fitted with a secure panic room to protect her from a violent ex-partner – concerns the effect of the policy on women living in Sanctuary Scheme homes.

The other, brought by grandparents Paul (pictured) and Sue Rutherford, of Clunderwen, Pembrokeshire, involves its impact on seriously disabled children who need overnight care.

In both cases it was argued that the policy, which came into force in April 2013, unlawfully discriminates against women and domestic violence victims and against children in the situation of the Rutherfords’ grandson, Warren.

The Government rejects the term ”bedroom tax” and says the regulations remove what is in fact a ”spare room subsidy”, with the aim of encouraging people to move to smaller properties and save around £480 million a year from the housing benefit bill.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Justice Vos announced that they were allowing the appeals in both cases on the ground that the “admitted discrimination in each case … has not been justified by the Secretary of State”.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) was given permission to challenge the Court of Appeal’s ruling at the Supreme Court.

In both cases it was argued that the removal by the Secretary of State under Regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 of part of their means-tested housing benefit in respect of their public sector housing was unlawful.

A DWP spokesman said: “We are pleased that the court found – once again – that we have complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

“We fundamentally disagree with the court’s ruling on the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) which directly contradicts the High Court. We have already been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

“We know there will be people who need extra support. That is why we are giving local authorities over £870 million in extra funding over the next five years to help ensure people in difficult situations like these don’t lose out.”

Judges have heard that A’s former partner has raped, assaulted and threatened to kill her, but she nevertheless faced losing £11.65 a week from her benefits.

This was because her panic room was regarded as a spare room under the regulations and A was deemed to be ”under-occupying” her home.

The DWP argued that her challenge lacked credibility because funds in the form of discretionary housing payments (DHPs) were available through local councils to people facing exceptional circumstances.

The Rutherfords care for Warren, who has a rare genetic disorder which means he is unable to walk, talk or feed himself and is doubly incontinent.

The family live in a three-bedroom bungalow adapted for his needs, with the couple in one room, Warren in another, and the third needed for carers staying overnight and to store equipment.

They launched a judicial review over the regulations, which allow for an additional bedroom if the claimant or their partner require overnight care but make no provision for children who need an overnight carer.

When their case was dismissed at the High Court in 2014, Mr Justice Stuart-Smith said a discretionary housing payment made by Pembrokeshire County Council covered the rental shortfall until April 2015 and there was no evidence to suggest it would refuse to make up the shortfall in the future.

Mr Rutherford told the BBC: “I’m a bit lost for words. I could almost cry with happiness.”

He added: “Other people are going to benefit from this decision as well. That was partly why we did it.”

Rebekah Carrier, the solicitor acting for A, said: “These changes to housing benefit have had a catastrophic impact upon vulnerable people across the country.

“Our client’s life is at risk and she is terrified. The anxiety caused by the bedroom tax and the uncertainty about this case has been huge.

“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 move 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 lawyer added: “She is a vulnerable single parent who has been a victim of rape and assault. She is delighted that the Court of Appeal has recognised the impact that the bedroom tax is having on her and others like her.

“She very much hopes that the Secretary of State will now see sense and agree to change the rules to protect the small but extremely vulnerable class of women and children who need the safety of a sanctuary scheme whilst they try to rebuild their lives after surviving domestic violence.”

Mike Spencer, solicitor at the Child Poverty Action Group, who acts for the Rutherfords, said: “We are delighted that disabled children will finally be entitled to the same treatment as disabled adults.

“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.

“Instead of putting this family through the ordeal of a further appeal, the Government should now think seriously about amending the regulations to protect severely disabled children.”

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2016, All Rights Reserved. Picture (c) BBC News / PA Wire.