HB Bulletin U3/2019: Court of Appeal judgment: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Hockley (1) and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (2)
Updated 23 August 2019
© Crown copyright 2019
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/housing-benefit-urgent-bulletins-2019/court-of-appeal-judgment-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-v-hockley-1-and-nuneaton-and-bedworth-borough-council-2
Contact
Queries about the:
- distribution of this bulletin, contact housing.correspondenceandpqs@dwp.gov.uk
- content of this bulletin, contact housing.benefitenquiries@dwp.gov.uk
Who should read
All Housing Benefit staff
Action
For information
Summary of judgment
1. On 24 June 2019 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the case of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Hockley (1) and Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (2). This judgment concerns the size criteria Regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Legislation 2006: The Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy Policy (RSRS).
2. The full judgment is available at: Court of Appeal - Hockley Judgment.
3. The respondent challenged the RSRS policy on the grounds of the size and shape of the bedrooms. Both children were of the same sex so expected to share a bedroom and therefore a deduction of 14% was applied. The argument put forward was that because 2 of the 3 bedrooms in the property are exceptionally small and awkwardly shaped the children could not, in practice, share and, as 2 children of different sexes over the age of 10 would not be expected to share, this difference in treatment amounted to discrimination.
4. The Court found in favour of the department and concluded that:
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.
5. The Court declared that as the Carmichael case established that the legislation and the overall scheme was compatible with the European Court of Human Rights and thus lawful and non-discriminatory then it cannot become discriminatory when applied to a particular family unit, particularly when mitigation is available through Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP) as part of the overall scheme.
Effect of the judgment
6. While there has been no change in legislation, the Court of Appeal judgment is relevant case law and as such local authorities are legally bound to apply the judgment when determining application for Housing Benefit under the Local Housing Allowance size criteria regulations in the social rented sector.
7. DHP remain an important option to help households adjust to the RSRS policy and other welfare reforms, and awards should continue to be made in appropriate cases in the usual way having regard to, amongst other things, the published guidance for local authorities.