The grandparents of a severely disabled teenager won a victory today when three senior judges branded the Government’s “bedroom tax” as discriminatory.
Paul Rutherford said he could “almost cry with happiness” after the ruling that the policy was unfair because grandson Warren needed an extra room for night care. The Court of Appeal also upheld a challenge by a victim of domestic violence, who had a “panic room” for protection from an abusive former partner who threatened to kill her.
The findings open the door for more people with disabilities or special needs to challenge the “bedroom tax”, which cuts housing benefit for claimants who have “spare” rooms. The Government brought it in to try to save about £480 million a year by getting claimants to move into smaller properties.
Mr Rutherford and wife Sue, of Clunderwen, Pembrokeshire, argued it un-lawfully discriminates against seriously disabled children. Warren has a rare genetic disorder which means he cannot walk, talk or feed himself, and is incontinent. His three-bedroom bungalow is adapted for his needs with grandparents living in one room, he in another, and the third for carers staying overnight and for storing equipment.
Mr Rutherford said: “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.” The other case was brought by “A”, a single mother living in a three-bedroom council house fitted with a secure panic room.
The judges heard her ex-partner had raped, assaulted and threatened to kill her, but she faced losing £11.65 a week in benefits because her home was deemed “underoccupied”. She argued that the policy discriminated against women in danger. Her solicitor Rebekah Carrier said: “These changes have had a catastrophic impact. Our client’s life is at risk and she is terrified.”
Jeremy Corbyn called the bedroom tax a “cruel and unjust policy”. David Cameron said Labour’s vow to scrap it would cost taxpayers £2.5 billion. Ministers have said they will appeal against the ruling. The case will now go to the Supreme Court.
