Sheffield Law Centre wins appeal over bedroom tax

‘Sheffield Law Centre has secured exemption from the ‘bedroom tax’ for a Sheffield family – and say others could have success too.

The family were originally told by Sheffield Council that they would have to pay the tax because their children could share a bedroom – despite one of them being severely disabled.

In 2012, the family were moved to a bigger property because their daughter needed her own room.

However, earlier this year they were warned they would have to pay the bedroom tax or move to a small home ...’

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/charity-wins-appeal-over-bedroom-tax-for-sheffield-family-1-5564992

Has there actually been an appeal?  It looks to me like the council simply implementing the last-minute amendment regs. 

And…PLEASE…it’s not an “exemption”.  I get soooo tired of hearing that!  If a household is still held to be underoccupying after factoring in the needs of a severely disabled child, it will still be subject to the bedroom tax.

The only group which is truly exempt remains pensioners.

Apologies, you are right of course.  I was muddling it up with the foster carer scenario. There are no regs - just DWP’s statement that they dropped their appeals in Gorry et al, and advised councils that these cases now constitute “caselaw”.  The relevant document is Urgent Bulletin U2/2013, which is what councils should be directed to.  I am aware that a number of councils think that the DWP’s “legal advice” is rubbish (which it probably is).  Some have decided to follow it anyway; others are more hesitant.

It is rubbish. We have decided to follow it as the least worst option, but when we get a challenge from someone who is refused an extra room exactly what are we supposed to provide to the C&TS; as the legislation we have followed?

Not the current regs, Guidance is not law and if anyone can find in Gorry a clear statement from the judge as to who should and should not be allowed an extra room then good luck to them. (It is of course not the Judge’s role to do this).

I also have strong sympathy that Gorry et al actually provides much wider protection than the guidance suggests.