Ten disabled claimants challenged the changes to the 2006 Regulations introduced by the 2012 Regulations. The changes restricted the ability to claim Housing Benefit for bedrooms deemed extra. The claimants said that in their different ways each had needs for additional bedrooms not allowed for by the Regulations.
Held: The request for judicial review failed.
Laws LJ, Cranston J
 EWHC 2213 (QB),  WLR(D) 325,  PTSR 1521
Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012, European Convention on Human Rights 14
England and Wales
Cited – AM (Somalia) v Entry Clearance Officer CA 1-Jul-2009
The appellant had married in Somalia. His wife lived in London and sought permission for him to enter, she acting as his sponsor. The Immigration judge had found that they met all the criteria save one, that they would be able to support themselves . .
Cited – RJM, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 22-Oct-2008
The 1987 Regulations provided additional benefits for disabled persons, but excluded from benefit those who had nowhere to sleep. The claimant said this was irrational. He had been receiving the disability premium to his benefits, but this was . .
Cited – Thlimmenos v Greece ECHR 6-Apr-2000
(Grand Chamber) The application of a rule that a felon could not become a chartered accountant infringed the rights under article 14, taken in conjunction with article 9, of a pacifist convicted of the felony of refusing to perform military service. . .
Appeal from – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 21-Feb-2014
The claimants were in recipet of housing benefit. They claimed that the new benefits cap (‘bedroom tax’) discriminated against them when additional space was need for the care of family members with disabilities . .
At first instance – MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 9-Nov-2016
The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Housing, Human Rights
Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513775