The grounds the policy were contested on were human rights laws; that the policy unfairly discriminated against disabled people. It's incontestable that it does. With Employment Support Allowance capped by a real terms cut at 1%, Disability Living Allowance to shortly be reduced in scope under the obscenely-named 'Personal Independence Payments', price inflation, and the making hundreds of thousands liable for a contribution toward their Council Tax bill, it's obvious a punitive policy like this would hit our most vulnerable people - among whom are disproportionate numbers of those who live with disabilities.
But the government undertook a crafty double move to ensure that the bedroom tax's administration absolved them of any legal responsibility for it. Earlier in the year, after being questioned by my MP about what constitutes a bedroom under the policy, Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud replied by saying there isn't any objective definition. Instead, when someone signs a tenancy agreement with a local authority or other social housing provider they accept the house has x number of bedrooms stipulated on the contract. In other words, what is and isn't a bedroom is determined beforehand by the landlord and this is then accepted by the tenant once the agreement is signed.
The second part of the government's move is they have left it up to local authorities - as administrators of Housing Benefit - to determine who is and isn't exempt from the shortfall left by the bedroom tax. In my own experience dealing with the City Council here in Stoke, as per guidelines, it has decided to exempt anyone for whom another room is required for equipment essential to a resident's continued health, or who uses the spare as a stopover room for a carer. The case of Charlotte and Jason Carmichael, highlighted in the BBC's report, clearly falls into the latter category. While they are married they cannot, for medical reasons, share a bed. Therefore as a full-time carer who has to sleep in the "spare" bedroom, they should not have to pay the penalty. However, for whatever reason, the decision maker - the local authority - has decided the Carmichaels are not exempt. Legally speaking therefore, it is their council who has responsibility and may be open to court action on discrimination grounds, not the government.
Just imagine it. The spectacle of disabled people taking Labour-run councils to court and how it might demoralise that section of core Labour support who are disgusted by the attacks on the most vulnerable this government are making. You could almost say the implementation of the bedroom tax was designed with this in mind.
Unfortunately, while lawyers have pledged to take this to appeal I would be surprised if it got anywhere. Again, under the laws as they stand, the government have no legal responsibility for how one of their flagship social security policies is implemented. If the law ain't broken from a legal standpoint, further action isn't going to fix it. What do they say about the law again?