Social rented sector claims — the ‘bedroom tax’


Rules restricting eligible rent if you are considered to be living in social housing (such as a council flat or housing association house) larger than you “need” and therefore “under-occupying” your accommodation, the so-called the “bedroom tax”, officially known as the “removal of the spare room subsidy”, came into force in April 2013. These rules were already in force for the private sector. Any working age claimant who is considered to be under-occupying has:


• a 14% reduction in their eligible rent for one spare bedroom;


• a 25% reduction in their eligible rent for two or more spare bedrooms.


You are entitled to one bedroom for the following people in your household:


• every adult couple (married or unmarried);


• any other adult aged 16 or over, including non-dependents;


• any two children of the same sex aged under 16;


• any two children aged under 10;


• any other child who would share, where the shared bedrooms are already taken; 


• a non-residential carer providing you or your partner with overnight care.


One spare bedroom is allowed for: 


• an approved foster carer who is between placements, but only for up to 52 weeks from the end of the last placement; and 


• a newly-approved foster carer for up to 52 weeks from the date of approval if no child is placed with them during that time. 


Rooms used by students and members of the armed or reserve forces are not counted as “spare” if they are away and intend to return home.


Legal challenge to the ‘bedroom tax’ 


In July 2013, several disabled tenants argued that the new HB rules discriminated against people with disabilities. The High Court accepted that the rules were discriminatory but decided that for disabled adults the discrimination was justified and therefore lawful.


However, the same did not apply to a disabled child unable to share a bedroom with another child because of their disabilities. Following the court’s ruling, the government introduced new regulations exempting households from the HB reduction where children are unable to share a room because of their disability. In the meantime, the disabled adults took their case to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court. 


In November 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of two families, but five more families had their appeals dismissed. Jacqueline Carmichael, who needed an extra bedroom for the hospital bed she sleeps in, rather than sharing a bedroom with her husband, and Paul and Susan Rutherford, who care for their severely disabled grandson and need an overnight carer for him, won their claims using the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ruling said that the exemption for children who cannot share a bedroom because of a disability should be extended to adults. 


However, a victim of domestic violence who had her home adapted to include a panic room had her appeal dismissed. 


The DWP challenged the Carmichael ruling in the Court of Appeal arguing that the first tribunal should not have used the ECHR in its judgment. The DWP won its case in March 2018 meaning benefit claimants can only argue against the DWP on human rights grounds in the High Court, not at tribunal level.