What happened at the supreme court?

The court ruled on seven cases, each of which had challenged housing benefit regulations underpinning the bedroom tax on the basis that they discriminated against the claimants’ right to family life. The claimants also contended that the regulations were in breach of public sector equality laws.

Remind me, what is the bedroom tax?

The bedroom tax, introduced in April 2013, is effectively a cap on the housing benefit payable to tenants in social housing deemed to be under-occupying their home or, in other words, are considered to have more bedrooms than their household needs. Those affected lose between 14% and 25% of their housing benefit, depending on how many “excess” bedrooms they have. Around 465,000 households are affected nationally. Studies found the bedroom tax triggered poverty, debt, isolation and ill-health in some of those affected.

Who were the claimants, and what were their circumstances?

Six of the claimants (Rourke, Drage, JD, Daly, Carmichael and the Rutherford family) either had a disability themselves or lived with family members who had a disability. They claimed they needed an “extra” bedroom to enable them to cope with the health and medical consequences of the disability, and that the bedroom tax therefore unfairly discriminated against them. The seventh claimant was a single parent (“A”) who as a consequence of being assaulted and raped had had a bedroom in her home specially converted into a secure “safe room”. She claimed that the bedroom tax – which financially penalised the safe room – discriminated against women like her who live in “sanctuary scheme” homes.

Why were Carmichael and the Rutherfords successful?

The judges agreed that there were unreasonable differences in the way housing benefit regulations treated adults and children. It was unfair that Jacqueline Carmichael, whose medical condition required her to sleep in a different bed to her husband, was hit by the bedroom tax while households where children needed separate rooms for reasons of disability were not. Likewise, while adults who needed an extra room for an overnight carer were exempt from the bedroom tax, children – such as Paul and Susan Rutherford’s grandson Warren, who has a rare genetic disorder and is unable to walk, talk or feed himself – were not. These anomalies, the judges ruled, were “manifestly without reason”.

Why did the other claims fail?

The judges dismissed the appeals by Rourke, Drage, JD, and Daly. They accepted that while the bedroom tax had had a discriminatory effect on the claimants, there was no direct connection between their or their family member’s disability and the need for an extra bedroom. Theirs was a social need, rather than a medical one. In theory, therefore, their needs could be met by applying for financial support to their local authority’s discretionary housing payment scheme. In A’s case, the judges found by a majority of 5-2 in favour of the government. They ruled while A must continue to receive the protection of the sanctuary scheme, that did not automatically require her to have an extra bedroom, therefore the bedroom tax did not discriminate against women.

What happens next?

As a result of their victory, the Carmichael and the Rutherford households are now exempt from the bedroom tax. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) says it will “take steps to ensure we comply with the judgment in due course”. This means housing benefit regulations will be changed to ensure households in similar positions are also exempted. It is not known precisely how many households will be exempt, but estimates put it in the low thousands. Households who do not get exemption will have to continue apply for discretionary help to pay their rent. These locally administered funds will be increasingly stretched as a result of the extended benefit cap. The failure of A’s case means that for now there will be no formal exemption for the estimated 281 women in sanctuary schemes who are affected by the bedroom tax. Lawyers for A intend to challenge the ruling at the European court of human rights.

Do the rulings damage the bedroom tax as a policy?

The rulings do not challenge the legality of the bedroom tax as a whole. The DWP, which chose to emphasise that its lawyers had been successful in five out of the seven cases, points out that the policy and regulations remain in place for now. But the judgment remains a blow to the government, which says it is “considering the implications of the judgment for the legislation”. Many people will find it extraordinary, given the specific household needs and circumstances of the Rutherfords, the Carmichaels and “A”, that they were subject to the bedroom tax in the first place, and that ministers invested so much time and public money doggedly fighting the cases all the way to the supreme court. The bedroom tax is already unpopular with the public and Wednesday’s ruling may only serve to underline that unpopularity.