Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Pembrokeshire Family Win Housing Benefit Cut Court Ruling
http://
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.
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.
Answers
The change in rules was always going to cause problems for some, they should have been able to act quicker than they have eventually done in these cases.
13:19 Wed 09th Nov 2016
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!)
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!)
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 !
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 !
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
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'
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'
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?
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?
"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.
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.
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Labour Scraps Doctors' Apprenticeships
News4 mins ago
Other Sports13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.