The bedroom tax has been declared unlawful by the court of appeal due to its impact on vulnerable individuals, dealing a significant blow to the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith.

Judges ruled that in two cases – those of a victim of extreme domestic violence and grandparents of a severely disabled teenager – the government’s policy amounted to unlawful discrimination.

The bedroom tax explained Read more

The first case involved A, a single mother living in a three-bedroom council house fitted with a secure panic room to protect her from a violent ex-partner. The other was brought by Paul and Sue Rutherford, grandparents of Warren, who is seriously disabled child and who needs overnight care in a specially adapted room.

In both cases, the claimants faced a cut in housing benefit because they were deemed to be “under-occupying” the additional rooms which were classified as spare.

Campaigners welcomed the ruling and called on the government to change the rules to protect women who need special sanctuary schemes, and to give disabled children the same rights as disabled adults.

Rebekah Carrier, the solicitor acting for A, said: “These changes to housing benefit have had a catastrophic impact upon vulnerable people across the country.”

Facebook Twitter Pinterest The ‘spare’ room , at the Rutherfords’ three-bedroom bungalow filled with things that Warren needs from day to day. Photograph: Aled Llywelyn/Athena

The Department for Work and Pensions said it would appeal to the supreme court against the ruling, meaning there will be no immediate changes to policy. It said the high court had previously ruled that the policy did not unlawfully discriminate against any of the claimants

A spokesman said: “We know there will be people who need extra support. That is why we are giving local authorities over £870m in extra funding over the next five years to help ensure people in difficult situations like these don’t lose out.”



But the ruling heaps pressure on the government over the bedroom tax, which the Labour party has vowed to abolish. A DWP evaluation of the policy published last month found that it it was not meeting its key aim of freeing up larger council properties Just one in nine affected tenants were able to avoid the tax by moving to a smaller property.

The shadow work and pensions secretary, Owen Smith, said: “This victory in the court of appeal is a massive blow to the Tories’ bedroom tax.

Labour has long argued that the bedroom tax is deeply unfair and discriminatory, which is why we have campaigned so hard against it.

“Surely the time has now come for the Tories to discover a conscience, listen to the courts as well as the public, and scrap the hated bedroom tax.”



Lawyers for A argued that the bedroom tax unlawfully discriminated against women, and had a particularly grave effect upon women who had survived extreme forms of domestic violence.

She was the victim of rape, assault, harassment, stalking and threats to kill by her former partner. Thousands of pounds was spent by police reinforcing the window frames and the front door of her property, and a panic room was installed with alarms linked to the police station.

Under the bedroom tax she lost £12 a week from her housing benefit because the panic room was treated as a spare room.

An estimated 281 households at risk of extreme domestic violence are facing bedroom tax demands.

The DWP argued that A’s challenge lacked credibility because funds in the form of discretionary housing payments (DHPs) were available through local councils to help people in exceptional circumstances meet the benefit shortfall.

A’s solicitor Carrier said: “She is a vulnerable single parent who has been a victim of rape and assault. She is delighted that the court of appeal has recognised the impact that the bedroom tax is having on her and others like her.

“She very much hopes that the secretary of state will now see sense and agree to change the rules to protect 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.”

The Rutherfords, of Pembrokeshire, care for Warren, who has a rare genetic disorder that means he is unable to walk, talk or feed himself and is doubly incontinent.



The family live in a three-bedroom bungalow adapted for his needs, with the couple in one room, Warren in another, and the third needed for carers staying overnight and to store equipment.



They brought a judicial review over the regulations, which allow for an additional bedroom if the claimant or their partner require overnight care but make no provision for children who need an overnight carer.



Rutherford told the BBC: “I’m a bit lost for words. I could almost cry with happiness. Other people are going to benefit from this decision as well. That was partly why we did it.”

When their case was dismissed at the high court in 2014, Mr Justice Stuart-Smith said a DHP made by Pembrokeshire county council covered the rental shortfall until April 2015 and there was no evidence to suggest it would refuse to make up the shortfall in the future.



Mike Spencer, solicitor at the Child Poverty Action Group, which acts for the Rutherfords, said: “We are delighted that disabled children will finally be entitled to the same treatment as disabled adults. It is absurd to have a situation where children like Warren might have to go into residential care at vast cost to the taxpayer because their families cannot pay for the housing they need.

“Instead of putting this family through the ordeal of a further appeal, the government should now think seriously about amending the regulations to protect severely disabled children.”