Advertisement
Giles Peaker: Well it applies to two specific classes of people. One is the Rutherford class, which is people who care for disabled children and need the additional room because of the child's disability. The other class involves the "A" class, which is people who have a panic room that enables them to remain in their own houses. In each of these classes the court has found that there was discrimination and that the DWP's argument that Discretionary Housing Payment [DHP – extra payments that help people pay their rent] was available through local councils was not a sufficient justification because it's not certain enough that DHP will be available to people that need it.
Advertisement
I'm a lawyer so I'm never positive. But there are clear issues with the bedroom tax scheme and these cases demonstrate them starkly. If the Supreme Court upholds the DWP's position there won't be a review. But I think it certainly adds to the pressure on the DWP to look at the blanket operation of their scheme. By and large bedroom tax cases have not done well at the court of appeal so this is a significant step on the way. This is the first bedroom tax case that has won at this stage.What about other bedroom tax cases that are going through the legal system? Could this ruling affect them?
It's very interesting because there are larger bedroom tax appeals that are being heard in the supreme court in March. These involve about 12 joined cases, most of which are people who require an additional bedroom because of a partner's disability – people who can't share a room but are expected to, under the bedroom tax regulations. The argument was that this involved disability discrimination. But the court of appeal said it was mitigated by DHP. In other words they agreed with the DWP's argument: that because there were additional funds in place, anybody in a serious situation would be sorted out.In today's cases, however, the court of appeal said DHPs weren't enough and that DHP may or may not be available. So while the court of appeal has previously been quite happy to accept that DHP did the job of justifying discrimination, now they are not. These are obviously specific situations but it does indicate quite a different approach and a change of thinking. If the Supreme Court finds that DHP isn't enough in the cases being heard in March then a broad sweep of the bedroom tax as it applies to disabled people would be found unlawful.
Advertisement
You can simply look at the research the DWPs itself commissioned, which came out just before Christmas. It's hugely destructive. It's impacting people with need for the additional room and the properties they'd move out to simply aren't available, so arrears have risen, people are borrowing money, eating less and using less heating. And these are people with extremely limited incomes.Do you think this decision is a good example of the problems facing the government's wider welfare policies?
I think the broad-brush approach of the DWP to benefit reform is coming home to roost. There have been quite a few challenges and quite a few are ongoing, but courts are finding that benefit reforms are having an unacceptable and discriminatory impact. So yes, this is certainly part of a range of challenges to the government's benefit reforms, which are revealing the extreme difficulties people are facing.The government says they will appeal today's decision and the case is now being decided by the Supreme Court. What do you think will happen?
I hesitate to second-guess the Supreme Court but I would suspect the judgement with Rutherford and "A" will be a difficult one to overturn. With the other bedroom tax cases happening in March, there are broader arguments at play, but my suspicion is that they might win on appeal too.
Advertisement