Supreme Court hearing in bedroom tax cases begins today

HB Anorak - 05 October 2016 04:24 PM

Tumbleweed.

Not today then, no?

Nope. The legal term has begun and the Supreme Court judges have awoken from their slumber and gathered to hear an exciting case about derivative brokerage in an international context - but not so much as a whisper about MA.

Well, if that doesn’t send them back into hibernation nothing will.

Sorry - no news this end…. just waiting like yourselves…..

Judgment to be given 9:45 next Wednesday (9th November): https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgments.html

Fingers crossed!

Wow….. indeed…

Carmichael appeal allowed.

Judgements been posted https://www.supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/index.html

Rutherford and Carmichael appeals allowed, none of the others succeed.

from the Rutherford and Carmichael judgment -

48. Lord Thomas CJ added that the court accepted that DHPs were intended to provide the same sum of money,  but it was not persuaded that this justified the different treatment of children and adults in respect of the same essential need within the same regulation. I agree.
49. I would therefore dismiss the Secretary of State’s appeal in the Rutherford case, but I would allow Mrs Carmichael’s appeal and would hold that in her case there has been a violation of article 14, taken with article 8. (In these circumstances A1P1 adds nothing and does not require further consideration.)

justice is done, at least in those cases.

Well done to Mike Spencer and Tom Royston for their work on the Rutherford’s appeal, really pleased for all concerned.

Have to express some disappointment with the verdict in relation to A and the sanctuary scheme - majority seem to take view that somehow it’s her “choice” to live in 3-b/r property and there can be no justification for not having a scheme to limit the amount of bedrooms she’s allowed, despite the fact she didn’t have a choice when she moved in and property subsequently converted. Lady Hale dissented on this part of the judgement.

Here’s our press release on the judgment -

http://cpag.org.uk/content/cpag-wins-supreme-court-bedroom-tax-breakthrough

Well done to CPAG for your victory and so much respect to the Rutherfords and Carmichaels for their determination and staying power which has helped lots of other people waiting on this outcome.

Thanks Sarah and completely agree that a lot of credit due to Rutherfords and Carmichaels - it hasn’t been easy and it’s a shame that it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court for it to be established that there was no justification for the difference in treatment between adults and children in the bedroom tax rules.

Now I’m trying to work out where the judgement leaves the case of a non-dependent adult (offspring) who needs an additional bedroom for an overnight carer as they are not a ‘relevant person’ (partner / child / joint tenant).

Following JD does it mean they would have to rely on DHP or, as such cases have been stayed, does a test case now need to proceed on this issue?

Does it also mean following Rutherford that once a child / young person becomes a non-dependent but still requires a bedroom for a carer the HB recipient then become subject to the tax and relient on a DHP?