WOW Petition debated by MPs on 27 February

rogerblack

This isn't quite right.
The most recent decision by the upper tribunal is that 'bedroom' as used in the bedroom tax rules is just an ordinary word.

It does not have specific legal meaning - and therefore it is up to each decisionmaker what the meaning is - based on the specific facts of the case.
To take a blanket position without looking at the facts is likely 'fettering discretion' - that is - it is not generally permitted for governmental departments to make up additional rules that are not laid down in legislation unless they have specific permission to do so.
Doing so would leave decisions open to Judicial Review. (once other appeal rights that may exist are exhausted).

Whether a room used for example for storage of disability related equipment is a bedroom - irregardless of specific disability rules - still must be decided on the basis of the facts.

Morglin

Some councils were 're-designating' their properties, in that a 3 bed became a two bed with study, and so on, so that tenants were not under occupying, but I'm not sure how well that worked out.

The whole thing is pointless because there simply aren't enough smaller SH properties for people to downsize to.

Lin :wall:

Mr_Lawnmower

rogerblack wrote: »

This isn't quite right.
The most recent decision by the upper tribunal is that 'bedroom' as used in the bedroom tax rules is just an ordinary word.

It does not have specific legal meaning - and therefore it is up to each decisionmaker what the meaning is - based on the specific facts of the case.
To take a blanket position without looking at the facts is likely 'fettering discretion'

I see the position we've reached in the same way, rogerblack. In essence, the Upper Tribunal has said that the number of bedrooms for the 'bedroom tax' is not the number of bedrooms stated by the landlord.

As there is no definition of 'bedroom', this means the usual rules of statutory interpretation apply unless and until Parliament or a higher court imposes an interpretation.

There's numerous possible grounds for judicial review if a decision maker does not tread carefully. These grounds include when a decision maker:

• wrongfully delegates his power (e.g. by leaving it to the landlord to make a decision about the number of bedrooms)
• fetters his discretion (e.g. by refusing to take certain circumstances into account, or adopting a blanket approach)
• takes something into account that the law does not permit him to consider
• purports to implement the 'bedroom tax' but actually intends some ulterior motive

cattermole

They are valid points Roger and Mr Lawnmower