Removal of subsidy for spare room not unlawful

29 October 2014 by

Bedroom taxCotton and others, (R on the application of) v Minister for Work and Pensions and others, 15 October 2014  [2014] EWHC 3437 (Admin) – read judgment

Whether you call it the “spare room subsidy” or the “bedroom tax”, the removal of this type of housing benefit has been nothing short of controversial. There have been several previous legal challenges to the Regulations, as well as to the benefit cap introduced as part of the same package of welfare changes. The outcome of these cases was not promising for these claimants, in particular the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (MA) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 13. Another important case is R (SG (previously JS)) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2014] EWCA Civ 156.

Now the High Court has settled one aspect of the matter by ruling that these amendments did not breach the  rights of singe parents under Article 8 ECHR  who looked after their children under shared care arrangements where they received discretionary housing payments to make up the shortfall.

Factual and legal background

This was an application for judicial review of the defendant secretary of state’s amendments introduced by the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012.

The claimants were all parents who are either divorced or separated from the other parent of their children and looked after their children under shared care arrangements. They each received housing benefit. The children alternated between living with each parent, spending approximately half their time with each and having their own bedroom at each premises. In each case the housing benefit payable to the claimants, the parents with secondary responsibility, had been reduced as a result of the Regulations with effect from 1 April 2013.

On the other hand, the claimants had been receiving Discretionary Housing Benefit (DHP) and consequently they had suffered no net loss of income at all as a result of the changes to housing benefit. All that had happened is that instead of receiving housing benefit as of right, they were receiving the same net amount made up by (i) a reduced amount of housing benefit plus (ii) DHPs making good the reduction.  DHPs are provided for by the Discretionary Financial Assistance Regulations 2001 which confers a broad discretion on local authorities to provide financial assistance to persons entitled to housing benefit who require further financial assistance to meet their housing costs.

Nevertheless, the claimants submitted that the housing benefit amendments were unlawful in that they were a breach of the right to respect for home and family life  under Article 8 on its own and read together with the prohibition on discrimination under Article 14; they also claimed that the regulations were irrational.  They argued that, if DHPs were to mitigate the reduction in housing benefit for parents with shared responsibility, they needed ongoing, not short-term, payments which caused them anxiety about the possibility of losing their homes and being unable to have their children stay with them.

The Court’s decision

Males J refused the application.

He accepted that Article 8 was engaged by the situation, but according to Strasbourg authority, as interpreted in SG, Article 8 does not generally require the state to provide a home and that the provision of funds for that purpose is a matter for political and not judicial decision.  In Anufrijeva v Southwark London Borough Council [2003] EWCA Civ 1406, the Court of Appeal made clear that the test for the state‚Äôs obligations under Article 8 was stringent, even where the welfare of children was at stake. Lord Woolf CJ said that he found it

hard to conceive, …, of a situation in which the predicament of an individual will be such that article 8 requires him to be provided with welfare support, where his predicament is not sufficiently severe to engage article 3.

“A short answer to this claim”, said Males J, was

that as a result of the DHPs received by each of the claimants, which have completely compensated for the reduction in housing benefit paid to them … none of the claimants has suffered any interference with their family life capable of amounting to a breach of Article 8.

They continued to live as they had done before the changes in housing benefit. The Regulations and the DHPs scheme had to be considered as a whole and, when that was done, the admitted discrimination in the Regulations was justified. This was the result if the government’s action was set against the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” test:

That follows in my judgement from SG at [106]. It is on any view a stringent test for a claimant challenging the lawfulness of such Regulations to meet.

Parliament had been aware of the impact of the Regulations on parents with secondary responsibility but had voted to approve them.

The question of objective justification for any discrimination under Article 14 raised the same issues as arose under Article 8 and therefore this ground failed.

As for the irrationality claim, the court concluded that the policy objectives of the benefit changes and the Regulations as a means to achieve those objectives were well within the government’s margin of discretion.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: