Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I'll stick to the European Court of Human Rights interpretation, thank you very much as it's a higher court. Which I'm sure the DWP will have trained you on the hierarchy. What has or hasn't happened previously is an irrelevance. The DWP introduced a bad policy, and deserved to lose the case.
|
The DWP haven't trained me in anything.
Nothing was introduced, at any time, by anybody, that is actually related to this case. If it's illegal now, then it was illegal in 2010, 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, 1950 etc. But it wasn't illegal in those decades and nobody complained about it.
The UNUSED "panic room" IS a bedroom. It would've made more sense for her to sleep in there, if she was actually in danger.
The other part of their decision.
Quote:
|
Today's judgement did not find in favour of a second claimant who lives in a three-bed adapted home with her severely disabled daughter.
|
So that decision is ok?