Discrimination and the "spare room subsidy": an analysis of Carmichael

Jed Graham Meers

Discrimination and the "spare room subsidy": an analysis of Carmichael

Law

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Abstract

Examines the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Carmichael) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on whether the bedroom tax was discriminatory. Reflects on possible problems involving the court's approach to the "manifestly without reasonable foundation" test, the transparent medical need for an additional bedroom, the relevant international duties, and the hazards of the discretionary payments scheme.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	24-29
Journal	Journal of Housing Law
Volume	20
Issue number	2
Publication status	Published - 2017

Cite this

@article{16e8e822428c45a5be98dc62c237a570,

title = "Discrimination and the {"}spare room subsidy{"}: an analysis of Carmichael",

abstract = "Examines the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Carmichael) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on whether the bedroom tax was discriminatory. Reflects on possible problems involving the court's approach to the {"}manifestly without reasonable foundation{"} test, the transparent medical need for an additional bedroom, the relevant international duties, and the hazards of the discretionary payments scheme.",

author = "Meers, {Jed Graham}",

year = "2017",

language = "English",

volume = "20",

pages = "24--29",

journal = "Journal of Housing Law",

issn = "1368-6542",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Discrimination and the "spare room subsidy": an analysis of Carmichael

AU - Meers, Jed Graham

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Examines the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Carmichael) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on whether the bedroom tax was discriminatory. Reflects on possible problems involving the court's approach to the "manifestly without reasonable foundation" test, the transparent medical need for an additional bedroom, the relevant international duties, and the hazards of the discretionary payments scheme.

AB - Examines the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of Carmichael) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on whether the bedroom tax was discriminatory. Reflects on possible problems involving the court's approach to the "manifestly without reasonable foundation" test, the transparent medical need for an additional bedroom, the relevant international duties, and the hazards of the discretionary payments scheme.

M3 - Comment/debate

SN - 1368-6542

VL - 20

SP - 24

EP - 29

JO - Journal of Housing Law

JF - Journal of Housing Law

IS - 2

ER -