Pembrokeshire Family Win Housing Benefit Cut Court Ruling

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-37924799

Some of you will recall this case which I have brought up in the past.

Marvellous result for this family but what a great pity that the Government had put them through hell for years.

[naomi24]

Mikey, Cutting benefits where they should be cut is absolutely right. There are several cases in your link that failed to convince the court.

[bednobs]

im not quite sure i meant i dont agree with the cuts per se. I just dont agree with them here (in this case)

[EDDIE51]

bednobs It looks very clear to me. They have to have a full time live in carer.The carer sleeps in the 'spare' bedroom so it was not 'spare' at all!
They had their benefit cut under the 'spare room subsidy' or 'Bedroom tax'
I just hope the government learn from this over the 'Brexit' appeal as well, they are certain to lose that as well as this case.
(not really the right place. But this has convinced me even more that Theresa May knows full well that the Brexit appeal to the supream court is certain to fail. Why is she persisting in it ? Could it be that the government want it to fail so that they have an excuse to do a U turn and get out of the 'wrong' referendum result?? I at first thought of this as a joke but the more I think about it and the more I hear, the more I think it could be true!)

[EDDIE51]

Bednobs The family WON at the high court AND WON at the court of appeal!! But the government appealed again to the supreme court
Now they have won for a third time at The Supreme Court.
There was NO WAY they could have stopped, the government had no case as was proved by the family winning for the third time.
The government must have been hoping the disabled son would die before all the court cases were finished so that they would win by default. I just can't see any other possibility !

[mikey4444]

Eddie...the Government has been very cynical in this affair.

As you say, the family had no option but to fight on, as the Government kept appealing. Its disgusting, and heads should roll.

[fiction-factory]

^ agreed.

[fiction-factory]

Ha ha- my "agreed" was for divebuddy.
My posts take ages to submit

[fiction-factory]

Mikey- if the government/DWP won every such case or lost every such case it would show that they are either not actively pursuing cases they should be pursuing or that they were generally acting too harshly. The fact that sometimes they lose a fraction of cases suggests to me they have the balance about right.
Having said that I'm not sure why they pursued this case so much- maybe there was some doubt as to whether the live in carer was essential- but as the family didn't lose out in the process I am not sure why you feel the government/DWP's action was 'disgusting'

[mikey4444]

FF....it was obvious that this family had a genuine need, when the case was first aired a while back, which is why the Government lost their case at the time. I still think that its disgusting that they should have dragged the case on for years afterwards.

[Togo]

Just be warned Mikey will "drag" this on longer than the Social Services are allowed to if you encourage him.

[fiction-factory]

Hi mikey- neither of the reports I read were specific enough for it to strike me as a clear cut case.
I understood the Southport one - that was because an extra large bed was needed so another room was needed.
I assume the Pembrokeshire case was because the couple (grandparents) had a carer who stayed overnight. Was the government/DWP questioning whether the presence of a carer was necessary (could the grandparents could take turns perhaps to cover the night time) or suggesting the carer could share the child's room or sit in the lounge?

[bednobs]

"A couple who care for their severely disabled grandchild have lost an appeal against cuts to their housing benefits because they have a spare bedroom.
Susan and Paul Rutherford, of Pembrokeshire, argued the room was essential because it is used by carers who look after Warren, 14, overnight.
They claimed the £14 a week reduction to their benefits, described by critics as the "bedroom tax", was unlawful.
But a High Court judge dismissed their judicial review claim.

[bednobs]

noe of those things FF, if an adult needs a carer, an extra room os allowed, but if a child des, it's not - they were protesting at the unfairness of that i think

[bednobs]

therefore, the govt are not the only ones to have dragged the cse on (as mikey puts it) the family did too when they lost

[fiction-factory]

Thanks. Yes I read that bednobs but was wondering why the DWP had originally appealed and whether it was as obvious as mikey says that the spare room was not a spare room.

[fiction-factory]

Sorry bednobs- crossed posts- my AB or my broadband is so slow

[fiction-factory]

I can see why the child/adult distinction seems wrong - but i am not sure how a decision is made as to whether an overnight carer in addiition to the grandparents who live there) is essential.
Anyway, I'm glad it's been resolved and that some decisions went one way, others another way.