× Search rightsnet
Search options

Where

Benefit

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

From

to

Forum Home  →  Discussion  →  Housing costs  →  Thread

Bedroom tax Decision [2017] UKUT 471 (AAC)

Ruth Knox
forum member

Vauxhall Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 551

Joined: 27 January 2014

Has anyone had a look at this decision, which was published in December?. It concerned the case of parents with two young boys, in a three bedroom house. Two of the rooms were so small that the FTT thought that neither could adequately house a bunk bed or two single beds and so decided that there should be no Bedroom tax..  The SSWP appealed against the FTT decision and the UT rejected the appeal but ordered a rehearing to establish the facts of the case. It might not apply often (usually there would only be one room this small) but their idea of “connection” in paragraphs 9 to 18 is interesting. 
Ruth

Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

The Secretary of State’s appeal against the decision (SSWP v Hockley and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council) is being heard by the Court of Appeal today - and currently live streaming via the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary youtube channel.

edit - full hearing footage now avaiable from the Judiciary site

[ Edited: 23 May 2019 at 12:42 pm by Stuart ]
Stuart
Administrator

rightsnet editor

Send message

Total Posts: 890

Joined: 21 March 2016

Case goes against claimant - Court of Appeal rules there is no subjective element to bedroom tax assessment -

There is nothing in the regulations to indicate that any such assessment is required to take account of how a property and, in particular, the bedrooms in the property would be used by a particular family unit. Were that to be so, the purpose underlying the legislation would be frustrated as a tenant could, by use of the property, change the objective classification so as to reduce the relevant number of bedrooms. This further demonstrates the objective nature of the assessment and, with it, the interpretation of “bedroom” within B13(5). (para 39)

Judgment - SSWP v Hockley & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1080 - available from bailii and case summary from rightsnet.

 

Ruth Knox
forum member

Vauxhall Law Centre

Send message

Total Posts: 551

Joined: 27 January 2014

This is disappointing but a first reaction is that, as in some disability discrimination cases (eg room for storing equipment) the answer given by the Court of Appeal that such anomalies are best addressed by the DHP system means that the award of a DHP becomes almost mandatory - could any refusal be challenged by a Judicial review?  Or would the fact that the children dont fall into a protected category make this more difficult than it would be in the case of disability?  Ruth