The High Court was asked 0n 15th May to declare that the government’s so-called ‘bedroom tax’ unlawfully discriminates against disabled people in social housing.
Martin Westgate QC, representing 10 claimants, told two judges the regulations are flawed because they fail to deal with the needs of the disabled and the amount of space and the number of rooms they realistically need if they are not to suffer discrimination because of their disabilities.
Mr Westgate told Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Cranston: ‘Each of the claimants has a need, because of disability, to occupy accommodation larger than that which would be allowed to them under the size criteria.’
Under the penalty for under-occupation of social housing, which was introduced on 1 April, working-age social housing tenants who are on housing benefit have their payments cut if they deemed to be under-occupying their home.
Mr Westgate said: ‘The key point is that benefit must match need for accommodation size where that need has been identified.’
In a three-day hearing, he is asking the court to rule that the new regulations breach article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects against discrimination.
He also argues that Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has failed to comply with his public equality duty under the 2010 Equality Act and the discriminatory element in the regulations must be quashed.
Department for Work and Pensions lawyers say reduction of rising housing benefit expenditure is an ‘integral aspect’ of the government’s deficit reduction programme, and the change in regulations is expected to produce savings of £500 million per year.
They say that quashing the regulations would have a ‘significant impact’ on this aspect of public expenditure.
In written submissions to the judges, they argue the DWP has acted lawfully and given careful consideration to the impact of housing benefit laws upon a wide range of groups of people, including the disabled, and made a judgment on what is ‘the best distribution of limited resources’.
The contend that the law gives the secretary of state ‘an especially wide’ margin of discretion in such cases.
They accuse lawyers for the applicants of disregarding measures taken by the government to provide funds directly intended to meet the needs of individual cases through a discretionary housing payment system.
Mr Westgate argued that DHP was a discretionary scheme outside the regulations.
He said: ‘It is not in any way an adequate or proportionate substitute for provision under the regulations.’
A spokesperson for the DWP said: ‘We are confident that these measures are lawful and they do not discriminate against disabled claimants or those with shared care of children.’
The DWP said it is giving councils an extra £150 million in discretionary housing payment funding this year so they can help vulnerable residents with all the welfare housing reforms, including £25 million for those affected by the removal of the spare-room subsidy to support disabled people who live in significantly adapted accommodation.