Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Supreme Court hearing in bedroom tax cases begins today
Yes you are right, I read the first limb and made a lazy assumption about the rest. Always read the fine print. Post edited accordingly.
You get your own bedroom if you are a member of a couple who cannot share a bedroom, or a member of a couple who can share a bedroom. Failing that, a couple get a bedroom between them. That’s the order of priority. So me and my wife claim HB: each of us is a member of a couple who can share a bedroom, so we get one each under subpara (zb) before either of us gets as far as subpara (a). Result!
Presumably what they meant to say was:
(zb) in a case where:
(i) subparagraph (za) applies to a member of a couple, and
(ii) subparagraph (za) does not apply to the other member of that couple
the other member of that coupleBut they didn’t.
Oh dear…
Actually, it does kind of make sense. If you are presented with a couple who cannot share a bedroom, you do have to have categories in the size criteria to cover a bedroom for both of them (if you assume that the one who “cannot share a bedroom” is the disabled one - arguably, though, they both “cannot share a bedroom”).
And I guess it would make sub para (a) redundant if it did not have that meaning.
But I agree it is very lazily and dubiously worded.
But I agree it is very lazily and dubiously worded.
Yes, you would have to go reg 2, as amended from 01/04/017, for it to make sense.
You know what? I wasn’t concentrating properly yesterday so I was guilty of skim-reading. I completely missed the definition in Reg 2 of a member of a couple who can share a bedroom. Not entirely my fault as they have decided not to put it in the alphabetical list next to a member of a couple who cannot share a bedroom, but it is there and it defines them as the other member of the couple where one cannot share. So it does stack up properly. Ignore my earlier comment!
What will happen in cases that have been stayed behind Rutherford etc and they have been awarded DHP’s in the meantime.
Assuming the UT now allows the claimants appeal (or reject the LA’s appeal) my assumption is that arrears of HB for the deduction will have to be paid back to the date of the decision under appeal (and the DHP is not recoverable)?
All depends what kind of remedy a Tribunal can award in cases like this - see my post on page 4.
Just come across this
Bedroom tax couple back in court as DWP try to block future appeals
Months after the defeat, however, the DWP is now arguing that the first tier tribunal didn’t have the right to rule on human rights grounds in the first place.
The government’s lawyers are due to lay out their argument in more detail tomorrow but at an initial hearing earlier this month, they claimed that a first tier tribunal only has the power to identify that legislation is incompatible with the Human Rights Act - not to rule on a case on that basis.
Worry or not?
Worry - possibly yes. I must say it is not at all clear to me how we get from a declaration following JR that the Regs unlawfully discriminate against the Rutherfords and Carmichaels to a conclusion that they and all “look-alike” cases are entitled to increased HB awards without an amendment to the Regs. As I have said earlier in this thread, we need some clarity from the UT/courts on the following combination of circumstances:
- Primary legislation compatible with the Convention: no issue with that
- Regulations not compatible
- Not really possible to read in/read out a word here or there so as to achieve a compatible interpretation in accordance with s3 HRA, especially in the case of couples who cannot share
- But it is unlawful under s6 for a public authority to act in accordance with incompatible regs
The Tribunal’s normal job is to confirm or revise the awarding decision - does it have jurisdiction to provide a financial remedy in these cases? That’s what we need to know
More from the Mirror:
On Tuesday, in an obscure London courtroom, a tribunal hearing saw lawyers for the Department for Work and Pensions attempt to block hundreds of disabled people from being reimbursed after last year’s Bedroom Tax ruling in the Supreme Court.
If the Secretary of State wins the case, it will also prevent courts and tribunals from using the Human Rights Act to find in favour of benefit claimants – leaving the only remedy as Parliament.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bedroom-tax-tories-fairer-better-10130413
DWP updated their guidance HB Circular A3/2017 on 24/3/17 to clarify that where two adults can’t share a bedroom it does not need to be due to physical disability (which was clear in the regs) -
We’ve revised the guidance regarding ‘couple unable to share a bedroom’ at paragraphs 16 to 18 and corresponding leaflets. Also, provided clarity to the description of the regulations in annex 1 and also 2 of the examples in annex 6.
Three Judge Panel has held LAs should disapply the rules for Carmichael lookalikes to avoid breach of rights….
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5901cd57e5274a06b0000230/CH_3609_2014-00.pdf
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Carmichael and Sefton BC (HB) [2017] UKUT 0174 (AAC)
DWP are already saying they will seek to appeal…..
Leigh Day post on the case: