Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
First-tier tribunal ignores ruling in MA
The first-tier tribunal in the Carmichael case has ruled that two disabled members of a couple can have a room each -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bedroom-tax-human-rights-victory-3448379
... going against the Court of Appeal decision in MA (which Carmichaels were part of) -
probably won’t stand up in UT but interesting..
There’s a suggestion in the article that room size may be a factor. That wouldn’t be covered by MA. The ‘human rights’ angle might be the Mirror’s gloss on it.
Yes i take your point but it’s an interesting one - this is Nearly Legal’s view on it -
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/04/ignoring-the-court-of-appeal/
and the view from Leigh Day who are representing her -
http://www.leighday.co.uk/News/2014/April-2014/Bedroom-Tax,-housing-benefit-appeal-victory
[ Edited: 25 Apr 2014 at 08:52 am by Daphne ]MA is a sticking block - FTT are taking it into account. As the recent CPAG WRB article states the spotlight has moved to DHPs’ - but getting Judges to accept that DHP s are part of the matter under consideration at FTT is problematic. Strictly DHPs are to be challenged via JR but my reading of Burnip ( para 45 ) and MA (para 71 -75 and para 80) indicates the importance the MR laid upon the rational operation of DHPs - in my experience, even in Scotland where SNP adminstration provided monies to undermine BT, DHPs are still not universally awarded to people with disabilities - even if they meet the “conditions” of chronic long term unchanging disability.
See also Judge Mark’s decision in CH/466/2011 - ‘the claimant is entitled to be paid a sufficient amount in addition to anything payable under the Housing Benefit Regulations that will result in her and her family not being discriminated against…’
While that doesn’t say ‘pay by DHP’ it is fairly clear that’s what it means. That fits with the decision in MA which accepted there was discrimination but effectively held that the Government had given due consideration and decided that rather than ammend regulations it would increase the DHP budget…(MA, paragraph 92)
Locally we are still winning cases where there is clear discrimination on grounds of disability but the shortfall wasn’t being covered by DHPs. Where we are getting nowhere is in ‘right to a family life’ cases.
MA is a sticking block - FTT are taking it into account. As the recent CPAG WRB article states the spotlight has moved to DHPs’ - but getting Judges to accept that DHP s are part of the matter under consideration at FTT is problematic. Strictly DHPs are to be challenged via JR but my reading of Burnip ( para 45 ) and MA (para 71 -75 and para 80) indicates the importance the MR laid upon the rational operation of DHPs - in my experience, even in Scotland where SNP adminstration provided monies to undermine BT, DHPs are still not universally awarded to people with disabilities - even if they meet the “conditions” of chronic long term unchanging disability.
See the update on my post - the excellent counsel for the Carmichaels, Sarah Steindardt at Doughty Street, had a very good argument for why Gorry should be preferred over MA, even though the Carmichael’s case was specifically considered in MA. Also availability of DHP addressed.
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2014/04/ignoring-the-court-of-appeal/
See also Judge Mark’s decision in CH/466/2011 - ‘the claimant is entitled to be paid a sufficient amount in addition to anything payable under the Housing Benefit Regulations that will result in her and her family not being discriminated against…’
While that doesn’t say ‘pay by DHP’ it is fairly clear that’s what it means. That fits with the decision in MA which accepted there was discrimination but effectively held that the Government had given due consideration and decided that rather than ammend regulations it would increase the DHP budget…(MA, paragraph 92)
Locally we are still winning cases where there is clear discrimination on grounds of disability but the shortfall wasn’t being covered by DHPs. Where we are getting nowhere is in ‘right to a family life’ cases.
The DHP point is interesting. If the ‘Policy’ was saved from being unjustifiably discriminatory by DHP (MA & Ors) what does it mean about individual circumstances if DHP not available (or can’t be promised in the long term)? It might not mean that the bedroom tax per se is unjustifiably discriminatory, but the immediate circumstances of *this* appellant are. It is certainly a line of argument.
I’m afraid I’m not surprised on the family life cases. I think the UT precedent is clear, even if counted as Art 14, not Art 8.
Does anyone know if Liberty are still pursuing the article 8 case?
hi ringleby ....
hot off the press from Liberty -
“Today Liberty announced that it has been granted permission to bring a Judicial Review of the Government’s controversial “bedroom tax”, based on the policy’s impact on separated families with shared custody of children.”
cheers - shawn
Thank you very timely
Cheers
Rachel