![[Basket]](images/basket.png){kind=small}
Your order![[cover image]](images/issue/BK201503.jpg)
Housing Benefit
[ch 6: pages 76-78]Social rented sector claims
New rules restricting eligible rent if you are considered to be under- occupying your accommodation, the bedroom tax, came into force in April 2013. Any working age claimant who is considered to be under-occupying has a:
• 14% reduction in their eligible rent for one spare bedroom;
• 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’re away and intend to return home.
The campaign group False Economy reported in September 2013 that nearly one in three council house tenants affected by the bedroom tax had fallen behind on their rent in the first four months of its operation and that more than 50,000 faced eviction.
Legal challenge to the ‘bedroom tax’
In July 2013, several disabled tenants argued that the new Housing Benefit 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 Housing Benefit reduction where children are unable to share a room because of their disability.
The High Court held that discrimination against adults with disabilities, even those in the equivalent situation to children with disabilities who could not share a room, was justified.
The case then went to the Court of Appeal with the disabled adults arguing that their position was indistinguishable from that of the disabled children who were now exempted. However, the Court of Appeal refused this argument on the basis that the differential treatment of adults and children was reasonable and justified.
In February 2015, the Court of Appeal judges found that the new Housing Benefit regulations discriminated against people with disabilities, who have a need for accommodation larger than the rules allow because of their disability. But the Court was satisfied that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions had justified the discriminatory effect of the policy.
In particular, it was satisfied that the needs of disabled people subject to the bedroom tax were being met by means of Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) which it said dealt with their needs for assistance with payment of their rent better than Housing Benefit. The change to the ruling was despite the government making clear that it will cut the funding available for discretionary housing payments.