The High Court in England & Wales has rejected a challenge by ten families to new housing benefit rules, known as the “bedroom tax”. The applicants claimed that the new rules unlawfully discriminated against those with disabilities.
The tax was introduced in April and requires benefits to be reduced for people living in local authority housing that have one or more spare rooms. The cut is intended to free up local authority housing by encouraging tenants to downsize. One bedroom is allowed per person or couple. Children under 16 are expected to share if they are the same gender and children under 10 are expected to share regardless of gender. Discretionary payments are available for some individuals who may be unfairly impacted by the regulation.
The reform was challenged by a number of families who argue that the reform unlawfully discriminates against people who for disability reasons cannot share a room. For example, one claimant suffers from spina bifida and must sleep in a specially designed bed, meaning her husband must sleep in a separate room. Nonetheless the couple have seen their housing benefit cut by 14%. The claimants argued that the cut violates Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights since it fails to recognise the additional needs of disabled people. The claimants also argued that it is a breach of the public sector equality duty by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
The court noted that the government had been aware of the difficulties caused to disabled children by the law since May 2012, and was highly critical of the government’s failure to produce a regulation to address the issue. Lord Justice Laws said the current situation “cannot be allowed to continue”.
However, the court dismissed the argument brought by adults with disabilities, even where their situation is similar to that of disabled children who cannot share a room. The court recognized that the regulation was discriminatory but held that the discrimination was justified in light of the availability of the discretionary payment. The court rejected the argument that the regulation violated the public sector equality duty saying that it is not the courts' role to “micro-manage” public policy.
The claimants were represented by three solicitors' firms; Leigh Day, Hopkin Murray Beskine and Public Law Solicitors. Shelter Children's Legal Service intervened in the case by way of written submissions, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission intervened by way of oral submissions.
Richard Stein, human rights solicitor at Leigh Day said:
“This is a most disappointing result. We will be seeking an urgent appeal to the Court of Appeal. Many people with disabilities including our clients may lose their homes unless the law is changed. Their lives are already difficult enough without the fear of losing their accommodation which has been provided specifically to meet their exceptional needs.”
Click here to read the judgment in full.
Click here to read a more detailed analysis of the case by the UK Human Rights Blog.
Click here to read an article on the case from Leigh Day Solicitors.