Legal challenge to the ‘bedroom tax’



In July 2013, several disabled tenants argued that the new Housing Benefit (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 needs 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. 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.