This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bedroom-tax-appeal-ruling-disabled-campaigners-government-acted-unlawfully-iain-duncan-smith-a7406951.html
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Bedroom tax appeal ruling: Supreme Court says Government acted unlawfully towards disabled campaigners | Bedroom tax appeal ruling: Supreme Court says Government acted unlawfully towards disabled campaigners |
(about 1 hour later) | |
Conservative welfare policy has suffered a blow after the Supreme Court ruled the Government discriminated against some disabled people with the controversial ‘bedroom tax’. | |
A spina bifida sufferer and a couple who look after a grandson with severe disabilities won rulings, but the judges rejected several other cases. | |
Following the decisions one of the victors called on Prime Minister Theresa May to scrap the ‘bedroom tax’ completely. | |
Since 2013 people in the social rented sector deemed to have a spare bedroom had housing benefit reduced 14 per cent, while those with two or more spare, had it reduced 25 per cent. | |
Ministers said it would encourage people to move into smaller properties, freeing up larger ones for families, but many disabled people claimed their needs were not accounted for. | |
Today’s decision saw Supreme Court justices rule in favour of Jacqueline Carmichael, who lives with her husband in a two-bedroom flat in Merseyside and Paul and Sue Rutherford, from Pembrokeshire. | |
In a joint statement Mr and Ms Carmichael said they were "overjoyed", adding: "We have been through almost four years of the sheer hell of the ‘bedroom tax’ policy, and this decision vindicates our long and difficult fight. | |
"Out of this human rights victory over the bedroom tax we ask Theresa May to now reconsider the whole policy for everyone." | |
Judges also ruled in favour of Mr and Ms Rutherford, from Pembrokeshire, who care for teenage grandson Warren. | |
But the justices had been asked to decide on other individual cases relating to disabled people or their carers, in which they ruled for the Government. | |
A spokesman 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." | |
The spokesman said the Government will have provided over £1 billion to councils by the end of this parliament for discretionary payments to ensure people in difficult situations had help. |