Rutherford & Ors v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions (Rev 1)
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE STUART-SMITH
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The court examined the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012, challenged by Claimants on grounds of unlawful discrimination against disabled children requiring overnight carers. The court considered the role of DHPs in covering shortfalls and found no substantial residual discriminatory detriment. Therefore, the claim was dismissed, maintaining that the scheme, viewed in totality, was proportionate and justified.
Judgment
Mr Justice Stuart-Smith:
Introduction
The Claimants wish to challenge the lawfulness of the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (“ the 2012 Regulations ”), which were made by the Secretary of State on 3 December 2012, having been laid in draft before Parliament and approved by affirmative resolution of each House.
Proceedings were issued on 24 September 2013. This judgment is the result of a rolled up hearing on 14 May 2014. At the hearing the Claimants and the Defendant were represented by Leading and Junior Counsel. The interested party, Pembrokeshire County Council, has taken no part in the proceedings and was not represented at the hearing.
For the reasons set out below, I grant permission but dismiss the application.
The Factual Background
The Scheme
The 2012 Regulations are part of the Housing Benefit (“HB”) scheme which was introduced (and subsequently amended) by the Coalition Government in its attempts to reduce the budget deficit at a time of acute financial stringency. Although colloquially referred to as the “bedroom tax”, the scheme operates by reducing the amount of HB payable where rented accommodation in the private or social sector is assessed as being under-occupied. The general nature of the scheme and its specific provisions have recently been described and considered by the Court of Appeal in R (MA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others [2014] EWCA Civ 13 , which is necessary reading for anyone who wishes to understand the political and legislative background to this claim. I gratefully refer to and adopt [1]-[12] and [15]-[36] of the judgment of Lord Dyson MR (with whom Longmore and Rimer LJJ agreed) without setting them out again here. Further details of the evolution of the scheme may be found in the judgment of Laws LJ in the Divisional Court at [2013] EWHC 2213 (QB) at [20]-[34], which should also be taken as read.
At this stage it is only necessary to recapitulate that the scheme has two elements. The first is that the 2012 Regulations reduce the eligible rent for the purposes of calculating HB where the number of bedrooms exceeds a number established by reference to the criteria set out in Regulation B13. The second element is the availability of Discretionary Housing Payments (“DHPs”) which are available on application to the local authority (in this case Pembrokeshire). As a matter of governmental policy, it was decided that DHPs were a more flexible and pre