Judges today ruled the Bedroom Tax is 'discriminatory' after a domestic violence victim had her benefits docked because she has a 'panic room' built by police to keep out her rapist ex-partner.

The woman, named only as Victim A, brought the case with Paul and Sue Rutherford, who were also being taxed for an extra bedroom used to care for their disabled grandson Warren.

Three judges at the Court of Appeal in London ruled in their favour today and Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith could face a slew of new cases.

Judges have heard that A's former partner has raped, assaulted and threatened to kill her so had a panic room in her home to seek refuge from the unnamed man.

Big win: Paul Rutherford, pictured with his severely disabled grandson Warren today, after they won a High Court case with a domestic abuse victim over the Government's use of the bedroom tax

Struggle: Mr and Mrs Rutherford (pictured in 2013) were being penalised for using their spare room for a carer to help with Warren's needs

But she nevertheless faced losing £11.65 a week from her benefits because it was regarded as a spare room under the regulations and A was deemed to be 'under-occupying' her home.

The DWP, who could appeal, argued that her challenge lacked credibility because funds in the form of discretionary housing payments (DHPs) were available through local councils to people facing exceptional circumstances.

David Cameron did not comment on the cases today but defence the policy at Prime Minister's Questions saying: 'Our fundamental position is it's unfair to subsidise spare rooms in the social sector if you don't subsidise them in the private sector where people are paying housing benefit.

Jeremy Corbyn called it a cruel tax' but Mr Cameron said: Isn't it interesting that the first pledge he makes is something that'll cost as much as £2.5billion in the next parliament'.

Blow: The ruling means Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith could face now a slew of new cases

The Rutherfords care for Warren, who has a rare genetic disorder which means he is unable to walk, talk or feed himself and is doubly incontinent.

The family live in a three-bedroom bungalow adapted for his needs, with the couple in one room, Warren in another, and the third needed for carers staying overnight and to store equipment.

They launched a judicial review over the regulations, which allow for an additional bedroom if the claimant or their partner require overnight care but make no provision for children who need an overnight carer.

When their case was dismissed at the High Court in 2014, Mr Justice Stuart-Smith said a discretionary housing payment made by Pembrokeshire County Council covered the rental shortfall until April 2015 and there was no evidence to suggest it would refuse to make up the shortfall in the future.

Mr Rutherford told the BBC: 'I'm a bit lost for words. I could almost cry with happiness.'

He added: 'Other people are going to benefit from this decision as well. That was partly why we did it.'

Rebekah Carrier, the solicitor acting for A, said: 'These changes to housing benefit have had a catastrophic impact upon vulnerable people across the country.

'Our client's life is at risk and she is terrified. The anxiety caused by the bedroom tax and the uncertainty about this case has been huge.

'She lives in a property which has been specially adapted by the police, at great expense, to protect her and her child.

'The prospect of having to move to another property - where she will not have any of these protections - or take in a lodger has loomed large for her during the three years it has taken this case to come to the Court of Appeal.'

The lawyer added: 'She is a vulnerable single parent who has been a victim of rape and assault. She is delighted that the Court of Appeal has recognised the impact that the bedroom tax is having on her and others like her.

'She very much hopes that the Secretary of State will now see sense and agree to change the rules to protect the small but extremely vulnerable class of women and children who need the safety of a sanctuary scheme whilst they try to rebuild their lives after surviving domestic violence.'

Unpopular: Tenants affected by the 'bedroom tax' can lose up to a quarter of their housing benefit and Labour say the policy is 'cruel'

Mike Spencer, solicitor at the Child Poverty Action Group, who acts for the Rutherfords, said: 'We are delighted that disabled children will finally be entitled to the same treatment as disabled adults.

'It is absurd to have a situation where children like Warren might have to go into residential care at vast cost to the taxpayer because their families cannot pay for the housing they need.

WHAT IS THE SO-CALLED BEDROOM TAX? Since April 2013, if a person of working age had a spare bedroom they cannot claim housing benefit for all their rent. Tenants have to pay an extra 14 per cent if they have one spare bedroom, and 25 per cent for two. Ministers say private sector renters do not get spare rooms for free, and argue the change will save around £500 million annually. But it has sparked protests across the country with opponents claiming it is forcing families into poverty and will increase the benefits bill by pushing people into the private sector. Advertisement

'Instead of putting this family through the ordeal of a further appeal, the Government should now think seriously about amending the regulations to protect severely disabled children.'

Owen Smith MP, Labour's Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, commenting on the Court of Appeal's decision to declare the Bedroom Tax 'discriminatory', said: 'This victory in the Court of Appeal is a massive blow to the Tories' Bedroom Tax. It provides a glimmer of hope for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been hit by this cruel policy.

'Labour has long argued that the Bedroom Tax is deeply unfair and discriminatory, which is why we have campaigned so hard against it. Surely the time has now come for the Tories to discover a conscience, listen to the courts as well as the public, and scrap the hated Bedroom Tax.'

In both cases it was argued that the removal by the Secretary of State under Regulation B13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 of part of their means-tested housing benefit in respect of their public sector housing was unlawful.

A DWP spokesman said: 'We are pleased that the court found - once again - that we have complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

'We fundamentally disagree with the court's ruling on the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) which directly contradicts the High Court. We have already been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.