Skip to main content

The bedroom tax in the Supreme Court: implications of the judgment

Buy Article:

$26.24 plus tax (Refund Policy)

In common with most decisions of the Supreme Court, the judgment in R. (on the application of Carmichael) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] UKSC 58 tells two stories: a short version and a long version. This article outlines both. The short story is the immediate impact of the decision: the application of the high-bar 'manifestly without reasonable foundation test', a distinction drawn on 'transparent medical need', and the lack of regard given to international obligations under the UNCRPD and the UNCRC. The long story is how this decision fits into the 'cut-and-devolve' approach to welfare reform in the UK, where local authorities are left to mitigate the effects of centrally determined benefit reductions without adequate support. After outlining the basis of the decision and its likely effects, this article argues that the decision does little to square this key structural circle at the heart of the UK government's welfare reform agenda.
No Reference information available - sign in for access.
No Citation information available - sign in for access.
No Supplementary Data.
No Data/Media
No Metrics

Keywords: AUSTERITY; BEDROOM TAX; DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION; DISCRETIONARY HOUSING PAYMENTS; LOCALISM; PROPORTIONALITY; TRANSPARENT MEDICAL NEED

Document Type: Regular Paper

Affiliations: Email: [email protected]

Publication date: 2017-06-01

More about this publication?
  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
UA-1313315-21
Cookie Policy
X
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more