Bedroom tax legal challenge dismissed by high court A protest agains the bedroom tax in Manchester. Two high court judges ruled that courts should not 'micro-manage' policy decisions when local authorities have discretionary powers. Ten families dealing with disability have lost their attempt to overturn the government's "bedroom tax" on the basis that it was highly discriminatory and contrary to article 14 of the European convention of human rights. Following the judgment on Tuesday, the government has announced an extra £35m in payments to deal with housing benefit shortfalls for those with disabilities. Two high court judges ruled that courts should not "micro-manage" policy decisions and that £30m in discretionary housing payments granted local authorities enough flexibility to deal with shortfalls. After new housing benefit rules took effect from April, thousands of families have had to switch accommodation to meet a 14% or 25% reduction in housing subsidies, depending on whether they have one or two bedrooms "extra" to the judged allowance. The 10 families brought the case to the high court earlier this year arguing that the policy, which reduces financial subsidy for those considered to have one too many bedrooms, discriminated against those with disability. One claimant in the case, 40-year-old Jacqueline Carmichael from Southport, who has spina bifida, was supplied with a specially fitted single bed by the NHS. However, without space in the room for another bed, her husband must sleep in a second room. Despite their circumstances, the Carmichaels have faced a 14% reduction in housing benefit since April. In March, barrister Kate Markus told the high court that Carmichael "needs space around her so that her nurses and her husband are able to attend her. Mr Carmichael must sleep in the second bedroom. Lawyers acting for the families have said that they will appeal against the ruling, which they found "disappointing." But in their lengthy judgment, Lord Justice Law and Justice Cranston came down strongly against the failure by the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, to set down other regulations following from a previous housing benefit challenge to payments made to families with disabled children in the private sector. In that case in March last year, judges found that size criteria for housing benefit in the private sector could discriminate against disabled children who needed a bedroom each because of health needs. In their ruling on Tuesday, the judges said Duncan Smith was relying on "departmental circular" to implement policy ordered by the courts last year, which was not sufficient. A DWP spokesperson welcomed the ruling saying: "We are pleased to learn that the court has found in our favour and agreed that we have fulfilled our equality duties to disabled people. Reform of housing benefit in the social sector is essential, so the taxpayer does not pay for people's extra bedrooms. But we have ensured extra discretionary housing support is in place to help those who need it and today we have announced a further £35m of funding to councils to aid residents. In a statement from one of the three solicitors firms bringing the cases, Richard Stein from Leigh Day said: "This is a most disappointing result. We will be seeking an urgent appeal to the court of appeal. Many people with disabilities, including our clients, may lose their homes unless the law is changed. Their lives are already difficult enough without the fear of losing their accommodation, which has been provided specifically to meet their exceptional needs. Campbell Robb, chief executive of housing charity Shelter, said the ruling was "devastating news for disabled adults and families with disabled or vulnerable children, who'll be put at real risk of homelessness for having a bedroom they just can't do without." Richard Hawkes, chief executive of the disability charity Scope, called on the government to reconsider its approach to welfare. The majority of people affected by the bedroom tax are disabled. Many need an additional room for specialist equipment, or so that their severely disabled child can sleep separately from their siblings. For them, a spare bedroom is not a luxury, it is an essential, " Hawkes said. The government has repeatedly referred to a discretionary fund to support those hit by this cut. But we know that this money is not getting to disabled people. The fact is that in 2013, disabled people are struggling to make ends meet. Life costs more if you're disabled but living costs are spiralling, income is flatlining, and many are getting into debt just to pay for essentials. We urgently need the government to reconsider its approach to welfare.