By Mark Smulian | 30 July 2013
Campaigners against the ‘bedroom tax’ have lost a High Court challenge, it emerged today. Judges ruled that the changes to Housing Benefit rules did not unlawfully discriminate against disabled people.
Since April, tenants with one spare bedroom have their Housing Benefit cut by 14% and those held to have two or more spare bedrooms have faced a 25% reduction.
Disability campaigners argued that these rules failed to take account of the needs of disabled people who were unable to share a room with anyone else because of their condition or adaptations they required.
Law firm Leigh Day, which represented some of those who brought the case, said the court had accepted the rules were discriminatory against disabled people but that this was justified in the case of adults.
However, the judges criticised the government for failing to make regulations concerning disabled children sharing rooms, which Lord Justice Laws said ‘cannot be allowed to continue’.
Judges said the government must make the regulations ‘very speedily’ to show that there should be ‘no deduction of Housing Benefit where an extra bedroom is required for children who are unable to share because of their disabilities’.
Lawyer Richard Stein, of Leigh Day said: ‘This is a most disappointing result. We will be seeking an urgent appeal to the Court of Appeal.
‘Many people with disabilities including our clients may lose their homes unless the law is changed.’
A Department for Work & Pensions spokesman said: ‘We are pleased to learn that the court has found in our favour and agreed that we have fulfilled our equality duties to disabled people.
‘Reform of Housing Benefit in the social sector is essential, so the taxpayer does not pay for people’s extra bedrooms.
‘But we have ensured extra discretionary housing support is in place to help those who need it and today we have announced a further £35m of funding to councils to aid residents.’
Linda Burnip, of Disabled People Against Cuts, said: ‘People who have had thousands of pounds worth of adaptations made to their homes are being forced to move. Replacing those adaptations will cost councils far more money than this policy will save.
‘As usual with DWP policies it is ill-thought through and makes no financial or moral sense to penalise disabled people in this way.’
