Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Carmichael and Sefton MBC (HB):  UKUT 174 (AAC)
- Ministry of Justice, HM Courts & Tribunals Service, and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber)
- 27 April 2017
- Last updated:
- 13 June 2017, see all updates
- Decision date:
- 27 April 2017
- Housing and council tax benefits and Tribunal procedure and practice
- Housing and council tax benefits - rent restrictions and Tribunal procedure and practice - tribunal jurisdiction
- Three Judge Panel
Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber decision by Mr Justice Charles, Judge Lloyd-Davies and Judge Wikeley on 27 April 2017.
Read the full decision in CH/3609/2014.
Regulation B13 (‘bedroom tax’ or ’spare room subsidy’) - claimant and disabled wife unable to share same bedroom owing to wife’s disability needs; FTT should have directed local authority to calculate the claimant’s housing benefit entitlement without making a deduction of 14% for under occupancy (to avoid an unlawful breach of Mr & Mrs Carmichael’s ECHR art 14 rights (following R (Carmichael and Rourke) (formerly MA and others) v SSWP  UKSC 58.
Courts and tribunals have power to determine and so direct that, to the extent that subordinate legislation is incompatible with a person’s Convention rights, it should not be given effect to in determining the person’s lawful entitlement (or should be otherwise applied or disapplied in a way that does not breach the person’s Convention rights): Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  UKSC 47 applied.
An application by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for permission to appeal against this decision was refused by the Upper Tribunal. The Secretary of State has since made an application for permission to appeal and expedition direct to the Court of Appeal
Published: 27 April 2017
Updated: 13 June 2017
Decision date: 27 April 2017
- PTA application to Court of Appeal
- Refusal of Secretary of State's application for permission to appeal.
- First published.
Judges: Three Judge Panel