MR CH 59 2014
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge E. Jacobs |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | 2015 UKUT 34 AAC |
| Subject Matter | Housing and council tax benefits |
| Respondent | North Tyneside Council and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) |
| Docket Number | CH 59 2014 |
| Appellant | MR |
Decision of the Upper Tribunal
(Administrative Appeals Chamber)
As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (made on 13 November 2013 at Newcastle under reference SC228/13/03982) involved the making of an error in point of law, it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(ii) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the decision is RE-MADE.
The decision is: the claimant’s benefit is to be calculated on the basis that on and from 1 April 2013, she is entitled to only one bedroom for the purposes of regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 with the result that her entitlement to benefit is reduced by 14%.
Reasons for Decision
A. The issue- This is the lead case before the Upper Tribunal on the application of the so-called bedroom tax for social housing to the shared residence of a child. That ‘tax’ is actually a reduction in the amount of housing benefit that would otherwise be payable to take account of the fact that the claimant’s dwelling has more bedrooms than their family requires. The Administrative Court dealt with the human rights issues that arise in such cases in R (Cotton and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others [2014] EWHC 3437 (Admin). Males J decided that a failure to make provision for shared residence could involve or amount or to a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but only in exceptional circumstances. This case deals with an approach that some tribunals have employed to assist claimants faced with a reduction in their housing benefit. I understand why tribunals have wanted to assist claimants who found themselves in the predicament of having their benefit reduced despite their need to retain a bedroom for when their child is staying, but the method used is based on a misinterpretation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial