Two families who claimed that the bedroom tax, which restricts housing subsidies, was unfair have won their appeals against the government at the Supreme Court.
But five other claimants had their challenges dismissed at the country’s highest court in a judgment that considered the specific circumstances of each individual applicant.
The seven-justice panel upheld the claims of Jacqueline Carmichael, who is disabled and cannot share a room with her husband, Jayson, as well as that of Paul and Susan Rutherford, who care for their severely disabled grandson, Warren, 17, in a specially adapted three-bedroom bungalow in Pembrokeshire, south Wales.
Roger Toulson, who read out the main judgment, said: “Jacqueline Carmichael (who has spina bifida) cannot share a bedroom with her husband because of her disabilities … The Rutherfords need a regular overnight carer for their grandson, who has severe disabilities.” Subjecting them to the bedroom tax was therefore “manifestly without reason”. 
The ruling pointed out that housing benefit regulations allow claimants to have an additional bedroom where children cannot share a bedroom because of a disability and that this exemption should be extended – as in the case of the Carmichaels – to adults.
The judgment follows a three-day hearing, which began on February 29, at which lawyers representing adults with disabilities and adult carers went to the Supreme Court to argue two sets of cases.
The claimants, who were represented by Central England Law Centre, Leigh Day and the Child Poverty Action Group, said disabled people were being discriminated against because they were subject to regulations made for the able-bodied.
Since April 2013, housing benefit for people in the social rented sector deemed to have a spare bedroom has been reduced by 14% and people deemed to have two or more spare bedrooms have had their housing benefit reduced by 25%. In these claims the issue was over whether disability meant they could move to smaller accommodation.
Cases brought by the other families were dismissed even though the court said it had “profound sympathy” for some of the claimants who lost. There were cries of “shame” from some of them when the judgment was announced.
Paul and Susan Rutherford were in court to hear the result. “It’s been a three-and-a-half-year battle,” Paul said afterwards. “We have had to keep re-applying for benefit all the time. It hasn’t been easy. I’m relieved, happy that a lot of other people who are in the same position as us will benefit from this decision.
“Warren cannot communicate but knows that we have gone up to London. If we had lost we would have had to downsize and fit out a new property with ceiling hoists and special adaptations. If we moved to a two-bedroom place we wouldn’t have had anywhere to employ carers. Health and safety would not have allowed it.
“Our (present) bungalow was fitted out for Warren and the spare room was intended to be used by a carer so that he or she could stay overnight.”