This article is from the source 'bbc' 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.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37921766
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Two cases won against housing benefit cut | Two cases won against housing benefit cut |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| A woman who suffers from spina bifida and a couple who look after their severely disabled grandson have won their Supreme Court appeals against the government's so-called "bedroom tax". | A woman who suffers from spina bifida and a couple who look after their severely disabled grandson have won their Supreme Court appeals against the government's so-called "bedroom tax". |
| The court ruled that the government's changes to housing benefit discriminated against them. | The court ruled that the government's changes to housing benefit discriminated against them. |
| But five other people had similar challenges dismissed by the court. | But five other people had similar challenges dismissed by the court. |
| The court said councils should be able to decide which tenants get discretionary payments to help them. | The court said councils should be able to decide which tenants get discretionary payments to help them. |
| Disability campaigners have been protesting against the system, which removed subsidies for social housing tenants who had "spare" rooms in their homes, since it was introduced by the government in 2013. | Disability campaigners have been protesting against the system, which removed subsidies for social housing tenants who had "spare" rooms in their homes, since it was introduced by the government in 2013. |
| Dubbed the "bedroom tax" by Labour, tenants had payments cut by 14% if they were deemed by their local authority to have one spare bedroom. | |
| 'Line to be drawn' | |
| Delivering the judgement on Wednesday, Lord Toulson said the judges unanimously agreed that the claim that the scheme discriminated against disabled people was "too broad". | |
| He said: "There is a line to be drawn between on the one hand those who have a medical need for an additional bedroom and on the other hand, those who do not have a direct medical need for an additional room but may have powerful reasons for staying where they are, because of their particular personal circumstances." | |
| For spina bifida sufferer Jacqueline Carmichael, 44, from Southport, Merseyside, the need for an extra bedroom was medical, he said, with judges unanimously ruling that "the scheme in relation to her is discriminatory". | |
| Mrs Carmichael's husband Jayson brought the court challenge along with four others after suffering defeat at both the High Court and Court of Appeal in January. | |
| Her condition means she has to sleep in a hospital bed in a fixed position. There is not enough space for a second bed so her husband sleeps in a separate bedroom. | |
| The court also ruled in favour of Pembrokeshire couple Paul and Susan Rutherford and their 15-year-old grandson Warren. Their case focused on the impact of the policy on disabled children needing overnight care. | |
| However, the judges rejected the cases of five others who have had their housing benefit reduced as a result of the government's changes. They were: |