Councils Reject 1637 DHP Claims By Disabled People

Councils rejected more than 1,600 applications for help from disabled people hit by the bedroom tax last year, potentially undermining claims that the policy is not discriminatory.

Lawyers acting for disabled tenants challenging the reform are considering using the findings – from Inside Housing research – if they are given permission to take their case to the UK’s highest court.

Freedom of information requests, showed at least 1,637 applications for discretionary housing payments made by disabled people impacted by the bedroom tax were rejected by just 49 councils last year.

The overall figure is likely to be much higher, as 154 other councils responding to requests did not record the data.

In February, Court of Appeal judges ruled that the availability of DHP to people with disabilities meant the bedroom tax did not unlawfully discriminate against them.

Emma Burgess, a solicitor at Public Law Solicitors, which acted in the challenge, said: ‘We argued strongly that disabled people were still left worse off because there is a risk – which is being realised – that disabled people may not be supported by DHP.

‘It is not outside the realms of possibility that the court will allow new evidence to be introduced if it materially affects the case.’

A spokesperson for disability charity Scope said: ‘This is yet more evidence that this policy has landed disabled people with another extra cost. They’re being forced to move, or find extra cash they don’t have to pay their rent.’

She said permission is being sought to appeal to the Supreme Court in April, following the Court of Appeal decision.

Giles Peaker, a partner at Anthony Gold solicitors, said: ‘This neatly demonstrates the gap between what the government argued in court about DHP, and how it actually operates.’

A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said: ‘Our guidance is clear that where disability benefits are clearly earmarked for care and mobility costs, local authorities should consider disregarding it in DHP applications.’