Court of Appeal rules on what is a "bedroom" for cap on housing benefit
The Court of Appeal has ruled that decisions on what constitutes ‘a bedroom’ for the purpose of deciding benefits means a room capable of being used as a bedroom by anyone listed in regulation B13(5) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 (as amended) and is not dependent on the situation of any particular claimant.
In The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Hockley & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1080 it heard an appeal by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions against a ruling by the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber).
Rachel Hockley, who receives housing benefit from Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, lives with her husband and two sons in a property with three bedrooms, two of which are small and awkwardly shaped. The adults sleep in the larger room and the sons have a small one each.
Originally the family's eligible maximum rent at the property was their whole rent.
But from April 2013 Regulation B13 - the ‘bedroom tax’ - was applied to them and the council decided they had one excess bedroom and reduced their housing benefit by £740 per year. Ms Hockley was then refused a discretionary housing payment.
The Upper Tribunal held that neither of the smaller rooms could accommodate both boys and therefore there was no spare room.
Giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lady Justice Nicola Davies said the intention of the legislation was to ensure that social housing was used in the most effective way and bedroom numbers served as a proxy for need because all persons in the home needed a bedroom.
“‘Bedroom’ is an ordinary word which is neither defined nor qualified in the regulations,” she said.
“The word has to be construed and applied in its context having regard to the underlying purposes of the legislation.”
She said nothing in the regulations indicated that any assessment was required to take account of how a property and its bedrooms would be used by a particular family unit.
“Were that to be so, the purpose underlying the legislation would be frustrated as a tenant could, by use of the property, change the objective classification so as to reduce the relevant number of bedrooms,” the judge said.
Nicola Davies LJ ruled: “The word ‘bedroom’ should be interpreted as meaning a room capable of being used as a ‘bedroom’ by any of the listed categories and not a room capable of being used as a ‘bedroom’ by the particular claimant.
“In holding that the correct interpretation was a room capable of being used as a ‘bedroom’ by the particular claimant, the [tribunal] erred in law and its decision was wrong. I find that [Ms Hockley] is entitled to a two-bedroomed property.”
Mark Smulian
