Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
Bedroom Tax- size criteria
Have there been any developments in relation to CSH/41/14 & 42/14 does anyone know? Last I heard they were awaiting three-judge panel hearing but I can’t find any updates.
An Upper Tribunal on room size took place in Scotland on 18 September. Judgment awaited…
Thank you most kindly!
Fife room size decision now available
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/6837/P15/#32831
Thanks Sean
All a bit messy by the looks of it…
Very messy; see the extremely useful post by Giles Peaker, and the comments, in Nearly Legal at http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/12/elephant-bedroom/ .
new DWP guidance issued today (HB U6/2014) ... plus the Tribunal Service has published the UT decision(s)
Interesting Nearly Legal blog on recent tribunal decision finding that, following the Upper Tribunal decision in CSH/41/2014, ‘the room had various physical features and drawbacks which prevented it from being used as a bedroom’, so it should not be counted under Reg B13.
Nearly Legal comments that -
‘What this decision suggests, as raised in my report on the Fife UT decision, is that if specific factors are raised by the tenant as going against the landlord’s statement of the number of bedrooms, then the benefit authority will have to consider those factors and give reasons for their decision. If they do not, or if there is no contrary factual evidence, then the FTT may well accept the tenant’s evidence (assuming it is adequate). And a decision on such facts is frankly unappealable by the benefit authority or DWP. The UT has established the legal framework, factual decisions made within that framework are not realistically appealable.
If there are physical reasons why a room is not useable as a bedroom, tenants should raise them with the benefit authority straight away. The benefit authority will have to deal with them, and cannot just rely on what the landlord told them if the tenant raises objections. As I predicted, the benefit authorities and DWP will not be happy with the effects of Fife UT decision.’