The Irish High Court has ruled in favour of a separated father of four who challenged a Department of Social Protection decision to limit his amount of rent supplement to that of a single person. According to Justice Baker, the Department’s decision had the effect of denying his opportunity to access accommodation suitable for his family.
The man was represented by Community Law & Mediation Northside (CLM Northside) who argued that the Department had failed to properly consider his family circumstances by treating him as a single person for the purposes of allocating the amount of rent supplement. In order to adequately consider the family circumstances of the man, the Department should have taken account of the rights of the applicant as a father and as a joint custodian of his children and the rights of the children to the care and support of the father.
In response to the ruling, Moya de Paor of CLM Northside commented: “We very much welcome the Court’s decision, which now obliges the Department to take into account all of the family circumstances of the applicant, including the needs of his children.”
Click here to read a press release from Community Law and Mediation.
Meanwhile in the UK…
Contrarily, the United Kingdom High Court has ruled that removal of a housing subsidy for spare rooms from single parents is not unlawful.
In the case of Cotton and others v Minister for Work and Pensions and others [2014] EWHC 3437 (Admin), the claimants were separated parents with secondary responsibility for their children, and who were all on housing benefit. The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012 introduced changes to benefits, known as the ‘bedroom tax’ which reduces the amount of housing benefits payable where spare rooms remain unoccupied. The claimants’ housing benefits were reduced on the basis that they were not the primary carer for their children, and so there was an assumption that the child would not live with them, despite the claimants’ assertions that the children occupy the bedrooms part-time. The claimants submitted that this was a breach of Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life) as read with Article 14 (non-discrimination).
The Court found that the regulations were not unlawful as the claimants were compensated by discretionary payments and the ECHR does not require that the State provide for housing under Article 8.
Click here to read a summary from UK Human Rights Blog.