• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • About DNS
  • Subscribe to DNS
  • Advertise with DNS
  • Support DNS
  • Contact DNS

Disability News Service

the country's only news agency specialising in disability issues

  • Home
  • Independent Living
    • Arts, Culture and Sport
    • Crime
    • Education
    • Employment
    • Housing
    • Transport
  • Activism & Campaigning
  • Benefits & Poverty
  • Politics
  • Human Rights
You are here: Home / Benefits and Poverty / ‘Bedroom tax five’ will fight on after ‘baffling’ appeal court defeat

‘Bedroom tax five’ will fight on after ‘baffling’ appeal court defeat

By John Pring on 21st February 2014 Category: Benefits and Poverty, News Archive

Listen

newslatestFive disabled people who face losing their homes because of the much-criticised “bedroom tax” have vowed to fight on, after a “baffling” court of appeal ruling that the new housing benefit regulations are lawful.

The court ruled today (21 February) that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) regulations – referred to by the government as the spare room subsidy removal (SRSR) policy – do discriminate against some disabled people, but that this discrimination is justified, and therefore lawful.

The housing benefit regulations introduced last April mean that tenants in social housing are punished financially if they are assessed as “under-occupying” their homes, with about two-thirds of those affected disabled people.

Many disabled people need extra rooms for impairment-related reasons, or find it impossible to move to smaller accommodation because of the shortage of accessible, affordable properties.

But the judges ruled today that the needs of disabled people subject to the bedroom tax were being met by the payment of discretionary housing payments (DHPs) – extra funds provided by the government to local authorities to distribute – and that for disabled people in need of an extra room their need for help with their rent was better dealt with by DHPs than housing benefit.

The five lost their high court case against DWP last summer, but subsequently won permission to appeal. A three-day hearing began on 20 January, with the court of appeal’s ruling delivered this morning.

Linda Burnip, co-founder of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: “We are obviously disappointed that discrimination against disabled people continues to be considered lawful and justified.

“How that can be the case remains deeply disturbing and we will be following up this ruling with continued legal action, if necessary all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.”

Ugo Hayter, from the law firm Leigh Day, who is representing two of the disabled claimants, said: “We are extremely disappointed by this judgment and we are baffled by the findings of the court of appeal.

“The court recognised that our clients and thousands of disabled people across the UK had a need for accommodation not provided for by the new housing benefit rules.

“However, the court decided that disabled tenants should not have their housing needs met on an equivalent basis to their able-bodied counterparts, just because they are disabled.

“Instead, disabled tenants are being forced to rely on short-term and discretionary payments.

“We are currently considering whether an appeal to the Supreme Court is possible. Our thoughts go out to the thousands of disabled tenants who continue to be faced with uncertainty, poverty and the risk of eviction.”

Anne McMurdie, of Public Law Solicitors, who represented the other three claimants, said: “In figures provided during the course of the hearing the government made clear that the fund for discretionary payments will be reduced by £15 million next year.”

She added: “On the government’s own figures, at least 440,000 disabled households will lose out under the new regulations.

“There is compelling and growing evidence of the terrible adverse impact on disabled tenants, having to make the dreadful choice between paying the rent and buying food or heating their homes.

“Disabled tenants are not asking for extra funds – they are asking for housing benefit to be paid at a level which meets their needs – for the same right as others. Discretionary payments are not the answer.”

The high court’s ruling confirmed the government’s position that the regulations should apply to disabled adults who need their own bedrooms for impairment-related reasons, even though disabled children in similar situations are now exempt.

The Disability Benefits Consortium has warned that nine in 10 disabled people affected by the bedroom tax are “having to cut back on food and heating to pay the shortfall in rent”, with many forced “deeper and deeper into debt” and at risk of eviction.

21 February 2014

Share this post:

TwitterFacebookWhatsAppReddit

Related

Regulator investigates DWP over universal credit ‘cover-up’
7th January 2021
High court is asked to order fresh inquest into death of Jodey Whiting
23rd December 2020
Call for action over ‘scandal’ of benefit claimant suicides ignored by DWP
17th December 2020

Primary Sidebar

Access

Latest Stories

Disabled high-rise leaseholders are living in post-Grenfell fear of fire and financial ruin

Disabled people highlight scores of lockdown concerns

Regulator investigates DWP over universal credit ‘cover-up’

Tomlinson held just a handful of external meetings every month early in pandemic

US retail giant faces legal action over new face covering rule

Minister allows transport industry its fourth exemption from access laws

Government’s pandemic failings caused us ‘horrendous’ challenges, say DPOs

Watchdog has approved care settings for COVID patients in only three-fifths of areas

High court is asked to order fresh inquest into death of Jodey Whiting

MPs call for inquiry into government’s role in COVID deaths of disabled people

Advice and Information

DWP: The case for the prosecution

Readspeaker

Footer

The International Standard Serial Number for Disability News Service is: ISSN 2398-8924

  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site map
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2021 Disability News Service

Site development by A Bright Clear Web