FOR the past four years Jayson and Jacqueline Carmichael, who has a severe spina bifida, Richard Rourke, a disabled wheelchair user, James Daly, who has a son with severe disabilities, Mervyn Drage, who has physical and mental disabilities, and “JD,” who has a disabled daughter, have been involved in a demanding legal battle with the government over the bedroom tax.

In February and March their case was heard at the Supreme Court with Paul and Susan Rutherford, who have a severely disabled grandson requiring overnight care, and “A,” who both won at the Court of Appeal only for the government to appeal against the judgement soon after it was given.

The judgement of the Supreme Court on November 9 divided the claimants into two groups: the Carmichaels and the Rutherfords in one group, and the rest of the claimants in the other group.

With relation to the Jacqueline Carmichael, it was found that the government had acted unlawfully, that there was no reasonable justification for treating Jacqueline Carmichael less favourably than a disabled child in the same circumstances.

This also applied in the case of the Rutherfords who require a third bedroom for an overnight carer for their severely disabled grandson, Warren, and so the government’s appeal was dismissed.

For the other claimants, it was decided that, although they had a good reason to receive benefits to cover their full rent, because their need for an additional bedroom was not connected to their or their family members’ disability it was not unreasonable for their individual claims to be assessed under the Discretionary Housing Scheme.

In a joint statement, Jayson and Jacqueline Carmichael gave their response.

“We are overjoyed at the Supreme Court decision. We have been through almost four years of the sheer hell of the bedroom tax policy, and this decision validates our long and difficult fight.

“Out of our human rights victory over the bedroom tax we ask Theresa May to now reconsider the whole policy for everyone.

“We would like to thank everyone who has supported us from day one, and hope others get justice too.”

Rose Curling from the Carmichaels’ legal team at Leigh Day said: “We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has ruled in our clients’ favour. They must now be provided with a housing benefit that meets their needs.

“It is very concerning that the government chose to drag this case through the courts for nearly three years, leaving Jacqui and Jayson scared and confused over their future in their home. With this ruling, they can now start to make future plans again.”

The Child Poverty Action Group’s Sophie Earnshaw, who acts for the Rutherford family, said: “For Paul and Susan Rutherford this judgement lifts an enormous burden of uncertainty about their grandson’s future — an uncertainty they’ve had to live with since 2013.”

Paul Rutherford said: “We are happy and relieved with today’s result. It has been an extremely stressful and long three years and we are glad it has come to a close.

“We never imagined this would happen to us — our priority has always been Warren and his happiness. We can now move on with our lives in the knowledge that we can continue to care for Warren at home.”

For the Carmichaels, hopes had been high as throughout the legal process it had already been acknowledged by the first tier tribunal, the High Court and the Court of Appeal that the bedroom tax discriminated against disabled adults such as Jacqueline, who, due to the severity of her disability, has to have a special mattress and bed, plus medical equipment in her room, meaning Jayson can’t sleep in the same room. 

Despite this, the High Court and Court of Appeal both said that because the government was providing “discretionary housing payments” to cover against any loss of income, then it was “lawful.”

The Supreme Court decision that the bedroom tax is unlawful in the way it discriminates unfairly against disabled adults who require their own room is one that is welcome indeed.

Jayson and Jacqueline Carmichael have always been mindful that this was not just their fight, but that of many disabled people hit by the application of this cruel tax.