Three single parents, who claimed the bedroom tax breached their human rights by limiting access to their children, have had their case rejected by a High Court judge.
According to Inside Housing:
Kim Cotton, Mark Hutchinson and Simon Cohen claimed the imposition of the benefit cut could force them to downsize to homes where their children could not come to stay.
But the judicial review was rejected yesterday, after the judge – Justice Stephen Males – said the provision of discretionary housing payments (DHP) had prevented their rights being infringed.
Justice Males went on to comment that even if DHP had been refused, Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights would not have been breached.
‘While I recognise the difficulties which the claimants may face, the situation… falls far short of what would be required to constitute an interference with Article 8 rights,’ he said.
The judge said only ‘truly exceptional’ circumstances could see human rights laws impose an obligation on the state to provide housing.
Giles Peaker, a partner at Anthony Gold Soliticitors and an expert in housing law, said this set ‘a very high bar’ for human rights challenges to welfare reform to succeed.
All three claimants’ children regularly slept at both parents’ homes using a spare bedroom- but all three households had received a full DHP, meaning they had not seen their monthly payments reduced.
Justice Males dismissed the claim on the basis that DHP had been provided, meaning his further comments about Article 8 do not set a binding legal precedent.
A DWP spokesman said: ‘We are pleased that the courts have once again found in our favour and agreed our policy is lawful.
‘The removal of the spare room subsidy is a fair and necessary reform. It will give families in overcrowded accommodation hope of finding an appropriately sized property and help bring the housing benefit bill under control.’