Rutherford & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions

[Legal Beagles]

JUDGMENT HERE ON BAILI .....
''Bedroom Tax''

In these two appeals (1) the appellant A (a female victim of serious violence living in housing protected under the Sanctuary Schemes) and (2) the appellants Susan Rutherford (SR), Paul Rutherford (PR) (the grandparents of Warren (W), a severely disabled child) and W contend that the removal by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under Regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (the 2006 Regulations) of part of their means-tested Housing Benefit in respect of their public sector housing was unlawful.
.....
.....
In both cases, we think that we should declare simply that "the Appellants have suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the ECHR on the basis set out in the judgment of the court".




.....
.....


Permission to appeal to SCJ granted.



Reference

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35418488


Bedroom tax': Government loses Court of Appeal cases

20 minutes ago
From the section UK


The Court of Appeal has ruled that the so-called bedroom tax discriminates against a domestic violence victim and the family of a disabled teenager.

The ruling followed legal challenges by a woman who has a panic room in her home, and the grandparents of a 15-year-old who requires overnight care.

The spare room subsidy, introduced in 2013, cuts benefits for social housing tenants who have a "spare" bedroom.

The government has said it will appeal against the decision.

What is the 'bedroom tax'?

One appeal - brought by a woman identified only as "A" - concerned the effect of the policy on women living in properties adapted because of risks to their lives. Her home was equipped with a panic room.

The second appeal - brought by Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren - focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care.

The BBC's legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling would affect only people within these two specific groups - severely disabled children needing overnight care and victims of domestic violence living in specially adapted accommodation.

There are believed to be about 300 victims of domestic violence that this applies to and thousands of severely disabled children in this situation.

"A" and the Rutherfords both claimed that the policy discriminated against them unlawfully.