× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Bedroom tax successful size appeal

Ruth Knox
forum member

Vauxhall Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 551

Joined: 27 January 2014

I am posting a successful size/configuration appeal decision we have had from the Upper Tribunal. (Have posted a plan as well) The room is obviously at the extreme end of the spectrum (46 sq feet and an unusual shape). Still, given a number of discouraging decisions it is encouraging to know that it is possible to argue on the size and ability to move around the room.

File Attachments

shawn mach
Administrator

rightsnet.org.uk

Send message

Total Posts: 3773

Joined: 14 April 2010

Brilliant .. thanks for sharing it Ruth

chacha
forum member

Benefits dept - Hertsmere Borough Council

Send message

Total Posts: 472

Joined: 13 December 2010

Keep hearing the phrase “Nelson followed”, must say glad to hear the phrase, in this case.

judithd
forum member

Derby Advice, Derby Homes

Send message

Total Posts: 51

Joined: 17 June 2010

Thanks for this - just lost one at first tier on this issue, this should be useful

ClairemHodgson
forum member

Solicitor, SC Law, Harrow

Send message

Total Posts: 1221

Joined: 13 April 2016

nice one.

i guess if there’s a next time, drawing in the notional single bed would assist in showing how it wouldn’t work and thus have, one hopes, saved a trip to UT.

hbinfopeter
forum member

Director - HBINFO, North Yorkshire

Send message

Total Posts: 101

Joined: 29 July 2010

“The judge recorded that the plan was accepted by the local authority’s presenting office as ‘accurate as to layout and dimensions.’ I do not consider that it was safe to rely on the plan as presented. Just to take the bed, this is shown on the plan as having dimensions of 240 by 110 centimetres, which equates to 94 by 43 inches. Those are not appropriate measurements for a single bed. The length in particular is far too long. If the bed is really intended to be as large as shown (almost eight feet in length), a giant could sleep in it in comfort. This makes me wonder whether the supposed scale is correct”.

There are more and more of these now I think…but I think the plan has to be accurate! This by Judge Jacobs in an as yet unpublished decision.  .

Ruth Knox
forum member

Vauxhall Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 551

Joined: 27 January 2014

Yes it would be very helpful to see a few more of these decisions both positive and negative so we would get a feel for the approach of the Upper Tribunal.  I agree with both of the last two comments - it can be useful to provide a second or third plan showing the bed (and possibly other furniture)  in position, but the plans must be accurate. There are standard sizes for beds (and for other furniture) in various documents such as the Nationally Described Space Standard and the Housing Quality Indicators. My main concern with beds is that it should of course be the bedframe that is measured, not the standard mattress. Even a divan bed has a bedhead. This brings the standard single bed up to around 79 inches by 39 inches (mattress 75 inches by 36 inches).

On a slightly different issue I am in the process of appealing some decisions where the door would only open partially without hitting the bed but this was considered acceptable at First Tier level. Has anyone had any experience of this issue? 

Ruth