Two families who claimed that the bedroom tax, which restricts housing subsidies, was unfair have won their appeals against the UK government at the supreme court.

But five other claimants had their challenges dismissed at the country’s highest court in a judgment that considered the specific circumstances of each individual applicant.

The seven-justice panel upheld the claims of Jacqueline Carmichael, who is disabled and cannot share a room with her husband, Jayson, as well as that of Paul and Susan Rutherford, who care for their severely disabled grandson, Warren, 17, in a specially adapted three-bedroom bungalow in Pembrokeshire, south Wales. Both had claimed discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Roger Toulson, who read out the main judgment, said: “Mrs Carmichael [who has spina bifida] cannot share a bedroom with her husband because of her disabilities … The Rutherfords need a regular overnight carer for their grandson, who has severe disabilities.” Subjecting them to the bedroom tax was therefore “manifestly without reason”.



Facebook Twitter Pinterest Paul Rutherford with his grandson Warren at their home in Pembrokeshire. Photograph: Benjamin Wright/PA

The ruling pointed out that housing benefit regulations allow claimants to have an additional bedroom where children cannot share a bedroom because of a disability and that this exemption should be extended - as in the case of the Carmichaels - to adults.

The judgment follows a three-day hearing, which began on 29 February, at which lawyers representing adults with disabilities and adult carers went to the supreme court to argue two sets of cases.

The claimants, who were represented by Central England Law Centre, Leigh Day and the Child Poverty Action Group, said disabled people were being discriminated against because they were subject to regulations made for the able-bodied.

Since April 2013, housing benefit for people in the social rented sector deemed to have a spare bedroom has been reduced by 14% and people deemed to have two or more spare bedrooms have had their housing benefit reduced by 25%. In these claims the issue was over whether disability meant they could move to smaller accommodation.



Cases brought by the other families were dismissed even though the court said it had “profound sympathy” for some of the claimants who lost. There were cries of “shame” from some of them when the judgment was announced.

Paul and Susan Rutherford were in court to hear the result. “It’s been a three-and-a-half-year battle,” Paul said afterwards. “We have had to keep re-applying for benefit all the time. It hasn’t been easy. I’m relieved, happy that a lot of other people who are in the same position as us will benefit from this decision.

“Warren cannot communicate but knows that we have gone up to London. If we had lost we would have had to downsize and fit out a new property with ceiling hoists and special adaptations. If we moved to a two-bedroom place we wouldn’t have had anywhere to employ carers. Health and safety would not have allowed it.

“Our [present] bungalow was fitted out for Warren and the spare room was intended to be used by a carer so that he or she could stay overnight.”

Sophie Earnshaw of the Child Poverty Action Group, who represented the Rutherfords, said: “This is a great result. Today marks the end of a three-year ordeal for the family. This means that those with disabled children who need overnight care will not be subject to the bedroom tax. Thousands of people will no longer be affected by the bedroom tax.

“For Paul and Sue this means they will be able to move on with their lives and be able to care for Warren at home. We hope the government will repeal the bedroom tax in its entirety.”

Rosa Curling, a solicitor at the law firm Leigh Day, who represented the Carmichaels, said: “This is an extremely important and welcome decision which recognises that the government cannot trample over people’s rights in the name of austerity.

“Our clients had a very clear medical need for two bedrooms and it’s disappointing that the government chose to fight this case for three years, putting our clients through a long period of uncertainty. Our clients are delighted that justice has been done and they can now start to move on with their lives knowing that their rights as a disabled person and their right to a family life together will be respected.”

But the claim brought by a woman identified only as A, who is a victim of domestic violence, was dismissed by a majority of five to two justices on the supreme court.

Her predicament has been highlighted by campaigners concerned that women who have had their homes specially adapted because of security threats from ex-partners will be forced to move to smaller and potentially less secure homes at great cost.

Rebekah Carrier, a solicitor with the law firm Hopkin Murray Beskine, who represented A, said she would appeal to the European court of human rights. “My client has been subjected to the bedroom tax because she was allocated a three-bedroom house 25 years ago, through no choice of her own, due to a shortage of two-bedroom houses,” Carrier said.



“She is a vulnerable single parent who has been a victim of rape and assault. Her life remains at risk and she is terrified. As a result, she has been given the protection of a multi-agency network and had her home specially adapted by the police, at great expense.”



Brenda Hale, who was in the minority, observed in her dissenting judgment: “The state has provided Ms A with such a safe haven. It allocated her a three-bedroomed house when she did not need one. That was not her choice. It later fortified that house and put in place a detailed plan to keep her and her son safe.

“Reducing her housing benefit by reference to the number of bedrooms puts at risk her ability to stay there. Because of its special character, it will be difficult if not impossible for her to move elsewhere and that would certainly put the state to yet further expense.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “It is welcome that the court found in our favour in five out of the seven cases. The court also agreed with our view that discretionary housing payments are generally an appropriate and lawful way to provide assistance to those who need extra help.



“In the two specific cases where the court did not find in our favour, we will take steps to ensure we comply with the judgement in due course. In most cases, local authorities are best placed to understand the needs of their residents, which is why we will have given them over £1bn by the end of this parliament for discretionary housing payments to ensure that people in difficult situations don’t lose out.”

Among campaigners in court to hear the judgment was Paula Peters, of Disabled People Against Cuts. She said: “While we are pleased for Jayson and Paul, who had their claims upheld, we are very concerned for disabled people who are in adapted property and who need a spare bedroom. The court ruled that the decision does not cover them in specially adapted property and they would have to move to another adapted property of a smaller size, of which there is a great shortage.”

The Rev Paul Nicholson, of Taxpayers Against Poverty, said: “I have watched people lose weight because they can’t survive on cuts imposed by the bedroom tax. It’s a bad law.”

Claire Glasman, of the anti-poverty group WinVisible, said: “The bedroom tax is an attack on low income people. It only affects people in social housing. Councils have been discriminatory in how they administer housing payments.

“We are worried that women and children are going to die as a result of the ruling on women fleeing domestic violence. There’s no safety for them in this judgment. [The judges] are picking and choosing in disability cases. Why should people have to lose their homes?”

Debbie Abrahams MP, the shadow work and pensions secretary, said: “The bedroom tax is a cruel and unnecessary policy. It is widely despised by the British public, who see it what for what it is; a callous attempt to punish low-income, social housing tenants. A Labour government will scrap [it], ending the misery faced by thousands across the country.”

