High Court To Rule In #BedroomTax Cases Today
The High Court is to rule on whether cuts to housing benefit for social housing residents with spare bedrooms discriminates against the disabled.
Lawyers for 10 families brought a judicial review over the lower payments for people in homes deemed too large.
They say the change – called a bedroom tax by critics – breaches their clients’ human rights because they need the extra space for health reasons.
Ministers say it helps control welfare costs and frees up social housing.
About 660,000 working-age social housing households judged to have too many bedrooms have lost an average of £14 per week since their benefit was cut at the beginning of April.
The families, all disabled or the parents of disabled children, challenged the changes during a three-day hearing in May.
The claimants are represented by three law firms and are from various places including London, Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester and Birmingham.
Their lawyers argued the benefit cut violated the Human Rights Act and Equality Act.
Who are the claimants?
There are 10 claimants represented by three law firms. They are from various places including London, Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester and Birmingham. Here are the arguments of four of them:
Case one
Lawyers for one London family say they live in a damp, one-bedroom flat infested with mice. One son has autism, the other has Down’s Syndrome.
The child with autism sleeps in the bedroom while his mother, father and brother sleep on the floor in the living room.
Due to the changes, they say they cannot afford to move to the larger property authorities say they need.
Case two
Jacqueline Carmichael has spina bifida and sleeps in a hospital bed which, she argues, her husband and full-time carer cannot share.
He sleeps in their spare room as there is not enough space in hers for a second bed.
Case three
In 2011, six-year-old Isaac was assaulted by the then partner of his mother, leaving him traumatised. He and his mother were made homeless and assessed as needing three bedrooms because, solicitors say, of Isaac’s behavioural and mental issues.
His mother lost £15.52 a week on 1 April when the council judged they were under-occupying.
Case four
A wheelchair user living in a three-bedroom bungalow shared with his stepdaughter who has a rare form of muscular dystrophy says he needs a third bedroom to store equipment including a hoist for lifting him.
He contends there are no suitable two bedroom homes in the social sector.
Ugo Hayter from Leigh Day, which is representing two of the claimants said the legislation was “unfair” and had “disproportionate negative consequences on disabled people and is therefore discriminatory”.
The lawyers also said the £25m the government has made available to councils to make discretionary payments to help disabled people affected by the benefit cuts is insufficient.
There has been fierce political argument about the new housing benefit rules, which supporters of the change say withdraws a “spare room subsidy”.
The government says the benefit changes were intended to reduce a £21bn annual housing benefit bill and encourage greater mobility in the social rented sector.
The Department of Work and Pensions said it was confident the measures were lawful and do not discriminate against disabled claimants or those with shared care of children.
At the time of the High Court case, a DWP spokesman said it was “only right” to bring back fairness to the system and pointed out there were “two million households on the social housing waiting list and over a quarter of a million tenants… living in overcrowded homes”.
The DWP added that an extra £150m in total has been made available to councils’ funding for vulnerable claimants.
However, the National Housing Federation said earlier this month that the consequences of the change were worse than feared,
Rent arrears have soared in some areas while larger houses are lying empty as people refuse to move into them, it claimed.
Same Difference 
they are living like pigs as it is while IDS and the DWP just act like scum bags their not even human in my eyes
these poor residents above are at severe risk of committing suicide by the very severe strain their under and not only have i been at that point myself i have so often seen it in my neighbours in the past
these so called lawyers above need to need to get their act together if these families are to survive long term
LikeLike
sadely they have not done homework*
it will fail as the way to fight is through the UNCHRDP*
the UK* agreed to this treaty in 2007*
they also signed the Optional-protocol*
I have no legal-training!
but am interested in Human-rights!
I have a reply from the UN* saying hat the articles contained in the,
UNCHRDP* are legally -binding
message me on F/B*
for a copy!
LikeLike
very true these Richard these lawyers have indeed not done their homework. as for the judge he seams to be sticking on a point of law but the real issue here is that these poor residents above are unlikely to survive long term as the brain just closes down over time
anyone just living in a one bed house/flat is at risk of depression as they are invariably to small for long term human health and as for a couple with a health problem then that’s defiantly a no no
i myself suffered very badly in my one bed flat bringing up my family for 15 years and there was hardly a 3 month gap in all that time where i was not admitted to hospital with pneumonia or some sickness bug
the main endemic trouble with this country and throughout it’s entire history is that it lacks common sense that and it’s other big failure one of greed by the few hence the country is always on the down with it’s people completely disregarded not only in the work place but throughout the whole of society
LikeLike