FIVE disabled people are currently pursuing a landmark bedroom tax case through the courts. However due to planned changes to the Human Rights Act, this case is now under threat.

It would be easy to assume that this is all about space and spare rooms, but the core argument is actually about the basic human right to not face discrimination and having the needs of a person with a disability respected and acknowledged.

Now the Human Rights Act is under threat of being watered down to a bill of rights, the case that is due to be heard in March 2016 at the Supreme Court is in jeopardy.

Jacqueline and Jayson Carmichael from Southport are part of this legal battle against the controversial spare room subsidy, commonly known as the bedroom tax.

Jacqueline, also known as Charlotte, has spina bifida and is in a wheelchair full-time.

She’s currently on bed rest, with deep pressure sores, a reminder of why she needs the specially adapted electronic mattress.

Due to this mattress, it’s physically impossible to fit another bed in the room, forcing her husband Jayson to sleep in the “spare room.”

Despite the adaptations to the flat, it’s obvious that rather than downsizing and moving to a one-bedroom flat, the couple desperately need more space, with Jacqueline’s wheelchair and other disability aids taking up a lot of room.

However, as they live in social housing, the bedroom tax applies, which means they have to have their housing benefit reduced by 14 per cent because they are deemed to have a “spare room.”

This works out as over £60 a month reduction, money they can’t afford to lose, as the Carmichaels incur additional costs each month, whether that’s paying for specialist deliveries or transport and other costs associated with disability.

So far, the case has been rejected by both the High Court and Court of Appeal.

However the judgements have revealed an anomaly where they distinguished between disabled children unable to sleep in the same room and adults with the same problem, coming to the conclusion this was unjustified for children, but lawful for adults due to it being government policy.

Following this ruling, Jayson in lower tribunal proceedings, with his legal team from Leigh Day, successfully challenged the local authority’s decision to reduce their housing benefit, using article 14 of the Human Rights Act.

This protects the right of a person who’s been discriminated against and treated less favourably by a public authority when others are in a similar situation.

The Department for Work and Pensions has said it will appeal this judgement, but this is on hold until after the hearing in March.

This means that the Carmichaels are currently exempt from the tax, but as Jayson says: “We’re the only ones in the group who are exempt, and that’s tenuously hanging by a thread.

“If the Human Rights Act is abolished before March 2016 then our exemption may no longer apply and we may lose the last chance to get rid of the bedroom tax in the Supreme Court.”

The impact on the couple is clear, with the stress and worry connected with the ongoing court case. Both speak of their disbelief at the Conservative win on election night, and now want the next leader of the Labour Party to maintain the stance it has kept in wanting to abolish the bedroom tax.

Amnesty International says: “In a perfect world, we all would treat each other with the respect and care every human being deserves. Sadly, this isn’t a reality. It’s usually the most vulnerable, particularly the elderly and sick, who suffer the most. That’s why under the Human Rights Act public authorities in the UK have to treat everyone with fairness, respect and equality.”

Unfairness seems to epitomise how the bedroom tax treats those like the Carmichaels, who due to disability and the need for specialist equipment are being penalised under this tax.

• Ruth F Hunt is the author of The Single Feather (Pilrig Press).