What is really going on in politics? Get our daily email briefing straight to your inbox Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

The Tories' hated Bedroom Tax was today dealt a landmark defeat in the European Court of Human Rights.

Judges ruled the benefit cut discriminated against a domestic violence victim who was forced to pay extra for her panic room.

The UK government has been ordered to pay the woman, who suffered rape and assault, 10,000 Euros (£8,600) for the "damage she suffered".

Lawyers have now demanded the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) act to help almost 300 women estimated to be in a similar situation.

The ruling - which came by a 5-2 majority of judges - comes almost three years after the mum known only as A suffered a defeat in the UK Supreme Court.

Ann Bevington of Hopkin Murray Beskine Solicitors, who acted for A, said: “These changes to housing benefit have had a catastrophic impact upon vulnerable people across the country.

(Image: Getty) (Image: AFP)

"Our client, whose life is at risk, has suffered great anxiety as a result of the bedroom tax and the uncertainty about this case.

"She lives in a property which has been specially adapted by the police, at great expense, to protect her and her child.

"The prospect of having to move another property (where she will not have any of these protections) or take in a lodger has loomed large for her during the six years it has taken this case to reach this stage.

"She is a vulnerable single parent who has been a victim of rape and assault.

"She is delighted that after such a long battle, the European Court of Human Rights has recognised the impact that the bedroom tax is having on her and others like her."

The victim of rape, assault, harassment and stalking at the hands of her ex-partner "suffered a violation of her rights" under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (discrimination).

(Image: Getty)

She took action after she and her 11-year-old son were deemed to only need two bedrooms, despite living in a three-bedroom home specially adapted by police to contain a panic room as part of a Sanctuary Scheme.

Lawyers say the home contains "a panic space and extensive security measures". But because she was deemed not to need a third bedroom, A's housing benefit was cut by 14%.

She applied for discretionary payments to plug the gap but today's ruling said this was not enough.

Launched by the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition in April 2013, the Bedroom Tax increases the rent people have to pay if they have "extra" rooms in their home.

Ministers say it is designed to free up much-needed bigger homes. But critics have long complained there is a shortage of smaller flats for people to 'downsize' to - so they end up stuck where they are, paying higher rates.

The policy, officially called the "removal of the spare room subsidy", hits working-age people who live in social housing and claim housing benefit .

Under the scheme social housing tenants have 14% less net rent covered by housing benefit if they have a "spare" room. It leads to some victims having to find an extra £1,560 a year.

Lawyer Ms Bevington said an estimated 281 households are in the same situation as A's.

She said: "We now call on the Secretary of State to take swift action in response to today’s ruling, and to change the rules to exempt from the bedroom tax the small but extremely vulnerable class of women and children who need the safety of a sanctuary scheme whilst they try to rebuild their lives after surviving domestic violence.”

Today's judgement did not find in favour of a second claimant who lives in a three-bed adapted home with her severely disabled daughter.

The claimant known as JD said her rights over private life and discrimination were breached after being charged more for the extra room.

But in this second case, the judges said discretionary payments to plug the gap were a "proportional" way to deal with her case.

The DWP has a three-month window to launch an appeal to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR if it chooses to.

A DWP spokesman said: “We are carefully considering the judgement.”