Reply To: New 3 Judge UT decision

#163450
John Smith
Participant

An interesting decision, and probably correct in Law. It can make no sense for a family being deemed to be under-occupying their property where, in fact, none of the bedrooms are big enough to fit in two beds, thus making sharing a practical impossibility. However, the whole thing becomes a little ludicrous when one looks at the court's directions to the First-tier Tribunal which will rehear the matter: extensive evidence has to be gathered as to whether different light fittings can be put in one of the bedrooms so that it can accommodate bunk beds without the danger of burning the child on the top bunk when, in reality, no matter what the decision of the Tribunal, the children are obviously not going to share a bedroom, as they each have their own! So, the whole issue is entirely hypothetical.