Government Loses Supreme Court Fight Over Bedroom Tax

The supreme court has ruled against the UK government’s attempts to force the bedroom tax on 155 partners of people with severe disabilities, in a decision that will hamper ministerial attempts to water down human rights legislation. A unanimous judgment delivered by the court’s president, Lady Hale, ruled that applying a 14% housing benefit reduction to a man, referred only as RR, was a breach of his right to home under the Human Rights Act. RR’s partner is severely disabled so “it is accepted” that the couple need an extra bedroom for her medical equipment, Hale said. Read more on the Guardian website.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/13/uk-government-loses-supreme-court-fight-over-bedroom-tax

Court Rules In Favour Of Single Mother Declared 'Intentionally Homeless'

The supreme court has ordered a council to reconsider its decision to declare a single mother of four to be “intentionally homeless” because she was unable to afford the rent. The unanimous ruling by five justices sets a significant precedent that will expand the housing responsibilities of underfunded local authorities. The case of Terryann Samuels, whose children are all under the age of 16, also highlights the way in which the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) repeatedly refused to support her appeal even though she was in immediate danger of being turned out on to the street. Read more on the Guardian website.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jun/12/supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-single-mother-declared-intentionally-homeless

Government Defeated In Bedroom Tax Case

A couple who had their housing benefit reduced because they were unable to share a bedroom due to a severe disability have defeated the government in court for the second time. In a decision passed down by the Upper Tribunal, the court ruled Jayson and Jacqueline Carmichael should not have been subject to the bedroom tax. A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spokesperson said they would seek to appeal the decision. The couple successfully challenged the bedroom tax at the Supreme Court last year. The Supreme Court ruled the government had unlawfully discriminated against Ms Carmichael, who has spina bifida and is unable to share a bedroom with her husband and as a result had her housing benefit reduced. Read more on Inside Housing.

Social Rented Housing: Housing Benefit – Parliamentary Written Answer

Frank Field:  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to the Answer of 19 January 2017 to Question 60098, what progress has been made on amending the regulations governing the under-occupancy penalty.

Caroline Nokes: The regulations in relation to two Supreme Court judgments concerning the removal of the spare room subsidy were laid on 2 March 2017 and will come into force on 1 April 2017. From this date an additional bedroom will be allowed, subject to certain criteria, where a disabled child or adult non-dependant requires a non-resident overnight carer (or team of carers); or where a couple one of whom (or both) are disabled and those disabilities prevent them from sharing a bedroom.

Social Rented Housing: Housing Benefit – Parliamentary Written Answer

Owen Smith:  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when he expects to announce what changes are required to comply with the terms of the Supreme Court ruling of November 2016 on the under-occupancy penalty.

Caroline Nokes: The Department is taking action to make changes to the regulations in order to comply with the terms of the judgment. The Social Security Advisory Committee and Local Authority Associations are being consulted about the changes in the usual way. The Department will also be issuing guidance to Local Authorities ready for when the changes are in place.

Housing Benefit: Social Rented Housing - Parliamentary Written Answer

Tracy Brabin: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, with reference to the Oral Answer of 14 November 2016, Official Report, column 30, what the entire amount spent by his Department was on every stage of legal action defending the under-occupancy penalty; and how many hours, at what cost, officials spent working on that case.

Caroline Nokes: The total legal costs of the proceedings in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in respect of MA & Others, Re A and Rutherford, which concerned the underoccupancy penalty, as of the 9 November 2016, when the Supreme Court judgement was handed down, was £484,077.94. This figure includes the costs of the Supreme Court proceedings in respect of MA & Others, Re A and Rutherford, as of the 9 November 2016, which was £206,842.65.

Supreme Court’s Rulings Mean Bedroom Tax ‘Will Still Unfairly Hit Thousands’

The government’s “bedroom tax” discriminates unlawfully against some disabled people who need an extra bedroom because of their impairment, but not against others, the Supreme Court has ruled. The Supreme Court ruled that ministers’ decision to apply the bedroom tax to disabled people who need an extra bedroom for a clear medical reason, and to families who need an additional bedroom for a disabled child who requires overnight care, was unlawful discrimination. But other disabled people who need an extra bedroom for impairment-related reasons lost their battle against having to pay the bedroom tax, after the court ruled in favour of the DWP. Read more on the Disability News Service website.

Supreme Court Bedroom Tax Breakthrough

The country’s highest court, the Supreme Court, has ruled that the Government discriminated against a disabled woman and her husband and a severely disabled child who needs overnight care through the implementation of the ‘bedroom tax’. The Supreme Court judges dismissed the Government’s appeal in the case of CPAG’s clients Paul and Susan Rutherford who provide around-the-clock care for their disabled grandson and who have a third bedroom for overnight carers. CPAG acted for the Rutherfords who had successfully challenged the bedroom tax scheme in the Court of Appeal which held the policy unlawfully discriminates against children with disabilities who need overnight care. Read more on the CPAG website.

'Bedroom Tax' Cases To Be Considered At Supreme Court

Housing benefit changes - dubbed by critics the "bedroom tax" - are to be examined at the UK's highest court. Supreme Court judges are to consider appeals which claim the removal of the government's spare room subsidy is discriminatory in some cases. In addition, the government will challenge an earlier ruling which found in favour of a domestic abuse victim and a disabled boy's family. Last month the Court of Appeal ruled the policy had discriminated against Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren and a woman identified as "A" who had a council house fitted with a panic room to protect her from a violent partner. Read more on the BBC website.

Call For Immediate 'Bedroom Tax' Exemptions After Court Ruling

Ministers should immediately exempt people "discriminated" against by the "bedroom tax" rather than write a "blank cheque" for legal fees, Labour has said. Shadow work and pensions secretary Owen Smith told MPs the exemption should apply to victims of domestic violence and the families of severely disabled children following the Court of Appeal ruling. He said it would cost the Government £200,000 to exempt 280 victims of domestic violence who have panic rooms installed in their homes. Labour MPs could be heard saying "shameful" after Work and Pensions Minister Justin Tomlinson confirmed the Government will appeal to the Supreme Court. Read more on the AOL website.

Bedroom Tax 'Breaches Human Rights Of Vulnerable People'

The so-called “bedroom tax” breaches the human rights of vulnerable people, Britain's most senior judge has ruled. But Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, and two other senior judges face claims of “usurping the role of Parliament” over the ruling hailed by campaigners against the Government’s benefits changes as a major victory. The judges, sitting at the Court of Appeal in London, found that the policy discriminated against a victim of domestic violence and the family of a severely disabled boy because of the way it is administered. Campaigners hailed the judgment as a vindication for claims that the policy was having a “catastrophic impact” on poor families.  The case is now set to go to the Supreme Court. Read more on the Daily Telegraph website.

High Court Orders Benefit Cap Judicial Review

The high court has ordered an urgent judicial review into the benefit cap and its impact on disabled people and their carers.  A claim by Iain Duncan Smith to have the case dismissed was unsuccessful and the High Court ruled that the case should proceed to a full hearing, no later than October 2015. The judgement comes soon after the Supreme Court ruled that the benefit cap breached children’s rights, meaning it could result in them not receiving “adequate food, clothing, warmth and housing, the basic necessities of life”. The Government recently admitted that the benefit cap could have “unintended consequences” for victims of domestic violence and amended the legislation to exempt those in women’s refuges. Read more on the Welfare Weekly website.

Supreme Court Rules on Intentional Homelessness

Councils will have to consider extra factors before deciding that someone is ‘intentionally homeless’, following a Supreme Court decision. The ruling means local authorities will have to examine their own procedures for assessing whether someone has deliberately made themselves homeless and therefore does not have to be housed. The decision follows a separate landmark Supreme Court ruling last week, which is likely to expand the number of people local authorities assess as ‘vulnerable’ and therefore have priority for housing. As a result of the latest decision, councils will have to take into account events or circumstances which take place after an applicant leaves or loses their home before they can decide if someone is intentionally homeless. Read more on the Supreme Court website.

Ruling a Major Step in Tackling Injustice Faced By Single Homeless People

The Supreme Court has ruled on a long-running legal challenge to the way councils decide who is 'vulnerable' enough for housing help. As a result, single homeless people will no longer have to prove they are particularly vulnerable compared to other homeless people in order to qualify for support. This follows interventions in the case by national housing and homelessness charities Crisis and Shelter. Read more on the Crisis website.

Westminster Supreme Court Housing Decision Will Affect All Local Authorities

All local authorities will have to publish fresh guidance on housing, following a Supreme Court judgement. The UK’s highest court allowed an appeal by a mother-of-five who was made homeless by Westminster Council after she refused accommodation fifty miles away in Milton Keynes. Titina Nzolameso argued that Westminster had failed to adequately seek suitable accommodation for her and her children in, or closer to, the borough. Her initial legal challenge was rejected, and her children were taken into care, while she was forced into sleeping on friends’ sofas, but, by majority decision, judges have allowed the appeal, and quashed Westminster’s decision that the accommodation she had been offered was suitable. Read more on the Brent & Kilburn Times website.

Judges Criticise Benefit Cap but Reject Bid To Overturn the Policy

The Supreme Court has criticised the government’s benefit cap for depriving children of the “basic necessities of life” but has ruled out overturning the policy. The criticism came in a Supreme Court divided judgment in the case of two single mothers who were victims of domestic violence and said the cap was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.  Although the appeal by the two women to overturn the policy was dismissed by a majority of three to two, three of the judges were concerned it was in contravention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requirement for governments to prioritise the interests of children. Read more on the Children & Young People Now website.

Homeless Mother Wins Landmark Supreme Court Battle

A homeless mother of five has won a Supreme Court battle, which will affect councils looking to place families outside their areas. The UK’s most senior court has announced a unanimous ruling in favour of a mother of five in her fight against Westminster Council. The full judgement of the court will be handed down after Easter, with other cases involving out of area placements set to be stayed pending the full judgement. The woman was appealing after losing her case in the Court of Appeal in October. Eric Pickles, the secretary of state for communities, intervened on Westminster’s side when the case reached the Supreme Court, with homeless charity Shelter backing the appellant. Read more on Inside Housing.

Disabled Bedroom Tax Victims to Take Their Fight to Supreme Court

Disabled victims of the hated Bedroom Tax are to fight it in the Supreme Court. They are testing a ruling that the 14% benefit cut for having a spare room is unlawful for families with children but not for adults. A campaign lawyer said: “This is very positive.” Charity Shelter said victims “are in real distress”. A judge decided the cuts were unlawful on families with disabled kids who were unable to share a bedroom with another child because of their disabilities, but said the cut to benefits of disabled adults was justified.  A group of disabled adults have now won permission to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider, arguing their case is the same as children’s. Read more on the Sunday Mirror website.

Homeless People with Disabilities Await Legal Ruling on Housing Applications

Homeless disabled people are increasingly being turned away by cash-strapped councils as officials find reasons to avoid treating them as a priority, according to lawyers mounting a potentially landmark legal challenge. This week the Supreme Court will consider decisions by local authorities to deny housing to a man with learning difficulties and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), another with mental and physical health problems and a drug addict who has been homeless since 2005. Read more on the Independent website.

Case Could Address 'Longstanding Injustice' For Homeless People

Local councils face a Supreme Court challenge over the way they decide which homeless people are judged 'vulnerable' enough for rehousing. Crisis and Shelter say that the outcome has the potential to address a longstanding injustice that has condemned many people to the streets after being turned away from help by their council. As the law stands in England, when a person comes to their council as homeless, they must prove that they are ‘vulnerable’ enough to qualify as a ‘priority’ for rehousing. But the homelessness charities have evidence of people in desperate situations being judged as not being vulnerable by local councils, including women fleeing domestic violence, people with learning disabilities, people with mental health problems and young people forced out of the family home. Read more on the Crisis website.