"Bedroom tax" ruled discriminatory

The government’s implementation of the “bedroom tax” unlawfully discriminated against people with disabilities and their carers, the Supreme Court has held.

The “bedroom tax” or “removal of the spare room subsidy”, introduced on 1 April 2013, reduces housing benefit by 14% for tenants of registered social landlords where they are considered to have one spare bedroom. Housing benefit is reduced by 25% where two or more bedrooms are considered to be spare.

Ruling in two appeals, at R (Carmichael and Rourke) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKSC 58, seven justices held in favour of the tenants with disabilities on the ground of disability discrimination. The tenants’ claims under the Equality Act 2010 public sector equality duty were rejected.

The tenants included a woman with spina bifida who has to sleep in a special hospital-type bed and cannot share a bed with her husband, and the grandparents of a severely disabled child who requires carers to stay overnight.

Sophie Earnshaw, of the Child Poverty Action Group, who acted for the grandparents, said the judgment “at last establishes that disabled children have the same rights to accommodation for care as disabled adults.

“These are ordinary grandparents who have dedicated their lives to caring for their grandson; they have won much-needed rights for families who care for disabled children who need overnight care.”

However, the justices dismissed the appeal of A, a woman living in a “sanctuary scheme” home adapted to protect her from the risk of serious domestic violence. Lord Toulson, giving the lead judgment, said the government and local authorities have a positive obligation to provide protection to women such as A but that there was no automatic correlation between being in a sanctuary scheme and needing an extra bedroom. While the court was sympathetic to A as she has strong social and personal reasons for staying, these were unrelated to the size of the property. No two-bedroom properties were available when A moved.

Dissenting, Lady Hale and Lord Carnwath said a failure to protect victims of domestic violence constitutes sex discrimination as it has been internationally recognized that gender-based violence is a form of discrimination against women.

A’s solicitor, Rebekah Carrier, of Hopkin Murray Beskine, said: “Although we welcome today’s ruling that A must continue to receive sanctuary scheme protection for as long as she needs it, we are disappointed and frankly baffled by the majority’s finding that there is no need to formally exempt sanctuary scheme users from the effects of the bedroom tax.” She confirmed that A intends to challenge the decision before the European Court of Human Rights.