Panel upholds claim of Jacqueline Carmichael, who is disabled, and carers Paul and Susan Rutherford against housing law
Two families who claimed that the bedroom tax, which restricts housing subsidies, was unfair have won their appeals against the UK government at the supreme court.
But five other claimants had their challenges dismissed at the country’s highest court in a judgment that considered the specific circumstances of each individual applicant.
The seven-justice panel upheld the claims of Jacqueline Carmichael, who is disabled and cannot share a room with her husband, Jayson, as well as that of Paul and Susan Rutherford, who care for their severely disabled grandson, Warren, 17, in a specially adapted three-bedroom bungalow in Pembrokeshire, south Wales. Both had claimed discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Roger Toulson, who read out the main judgment, said: “Mrs Carmichael [who has spina bifida] cannot share a bedroom with her husband because of her disabilities … The Rutherfords need a regular overnight carer for their grandson, who has severe disabilities.” Subjecting them to the bedroom tax was therefore “manifestly without reason”.
The ruling pointed out that housing benefit regulations allow claimants to have an additional bedroom where children cannot share a bedroom because of a disability and that this exemption should be extended - as in the case of the Carmichaels - to adults.
The judgment follows a three-day hearing, which began on 29 February, at which lawyers representing adults with disabilities and adult carers went to the supreme court to argue two sets of cases.
The claimants, who were represented by Central England Law Centre, Leigh Day and the Child Poverty Action Group, said disabled people were being discriminated against because they were subject to regulations made for the able-bodied.
Cases brought by the other families were dismissed even though the court said it had “profound sympathy” for some of the claimants who lost. There were cries of “shame” from some of them when the judgment was announced.
The problem with rulings like this is it divides claimants into 'deserving' and 'undeserving' in a quite arbitrary manner and creates all sorts of anomalies.
