Disabled Facilities Grants and the Better Care Fund

Introduction

One can get a grant from one’s council if one is disabled and need to make changes to one’s home. For example if one:

• – is physically disabled
• – has a learning disability
• – has age-related needs
• – is autistic
• – has a cognitive impairment, like dementia
• – has a progressive condition, like motor neurone disease
• – has a terminal illness
• – has a mental health condition

One might need to:

• – widen doors and install ramps or grab rails
• – improve access to rooms and facilities, for example with a stairlift, or level access shower
• – improve access to your garden
• – build an extension, for example a downstairs bedroom
• – provide a heating system suitable for your needs
• – adapt heating or lighting controls to make them easier to use

To get a grant, you or someone else living in the house must:

• – be disabled
• – intend to live in the property during the grant period (usually 5 years but this can be shorter, for example, if the person is terminally ill)

• The person who submits the application must be either the:
• – owner occupier of premises
• – tenant (private or local authority (but there is a special set of rules for these people) or housing association)
• – landlord with a disabled tenant
• – certain licensees as prescribed by the Secretary of State

An applicant who is below the age of 18 does not qualify for a disabled facilities grant. It is possible, however, for an adult to apply for a disabled facilities grant for the purpose of providing facilities for a person who is under 18.

The council (usually the Housing Authority but the role can be delegated) needs to be happy that the work is:

• – necessary and appropriate to meet the disabled person’s needs
• – reasonable and can be done practicably, depending on the age and condition of the property

Foundations, the national body for HIAs, provides a site at https://www.foundations.uk.com/how-we-help/adapt-my-home/ – an online self-assessment tool to give people an indication as to whether they are likely to qualify.

A local authority cannot refuse to allow a person to make a formal application or refuse to give someone an application form.

By s.2 Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 an application for a disabled facilities grant must be made in writing and must include details of the works needed, at least two estimates of the costs of carrying out the works and details of any other services and charges such as the disconnection of utilities.

The requirement that the application be made on a prescribed form that used to exist, has been revoked, so potential applicants should consult the relevant local authority regarding the application procedure. It is common to be told that it doesn’t count until it’s accepted as constituting an application, or that it can’t until there has been an OT’s report for which there’s a very long waiting list.

A certificate containing information about the future occupation of the property must be attached to the application. The local authority does not need to consider any application that is submitted without a certificate. There are three different types of certificate relating to ownership.

If an application for a disabled facilities grant is refused, the applicant is entitled to a written explanation from the local authority with the reasons why their application has been rejected.

See chapter 5 from the Guidance here.

5.2 Local housing authorities should ensure the needs of applicants are at the heart of the grant application process, including through the provision of clear information to applicants, and specification design.

5.3 The advice in this chapter applies both to DFG applications made under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and to other grants and loans contained in a local Housing Assistance Policy.

5.6 When designing new application forms authorities may find it helpful to refer to the following checklist of items to be included:

• the name, address and age of the person applying for assistance;
• the name and address of the owner of the property;
• the address of the property for which assistance is being sought;
• whether the applicant is an owner, landlord or tenant;
• the provision of sufficient information on the income and outgoings of the applicant to enable the assessment of any contribution or their ability to finance loan repayments;
• a summary of works required or the costs of materials;
• a detailed breakdown of the works along with competitive estimates from at least 2 builders;
• details of any agent handling the application;
• details of ancillary services and charges;
• certificate of owner-occupation;
• certificate of ownership;
• tenant’s certificate;
• certificates binding applicants to provide information when required, to demonstrate that they are complying with any conditions the local authority has set;
• proof of title;
• utility bill showing the applicant’s name, and the address of the application property;
• valid application date;
• a clear statement that all information provided by the applicant will be checked thoroughly and could be shared with other organisations handling public funds to prevent and detect fraud;
• a clear statement that knowingly providing false information or withholding information could lead to prosecution for fraud; and
• provision of a statement that the owner of the property consents to the work being undertaken.

5.28 The 1996 Act sets a maximum period of 6 months for a local authority to decide an application. This timescale allows for cases where an application is developed independently of the local authority. In practice, the vast majority of approvals will be a straightforward process of checking the details gathered during the application stage and should take no longer than 5 working days for an urgent case or 20 working days for a non-urgent case.

RRO Policies

Regulatory Reform Orders (RROs) enable authorities to offer tailored financial assistance without applicants having to go through the full DFG process.

However, an authority cannot refuse a full DFG to an individual who requests it, neither can they provide a loan to someone who might otherwise be eligible for a grant (Independent Review of Disabled Facilities Grant, para. 15.41).

Using an RRO policy allows more flexibility in the types of work that can be provided, and can be much quicker. 

Many local authorities still do not have an RRO policy, and may be hampered by a lack of staffing resources or strategic management support, or concerns about the audit process required by discretionary rather than mandatory grants. 

Other sources of assistance

Some DFG applicants who are required to contribute to all or part of the costs of the works may qualify for financial assistance under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (CSDPA). 

Section 2 of the CSDPA, which is still in force for CHILDREN, places a duty on local authorities to “make arrangements” for all or any of the matters specified in paras. (a)-(h) in the case of any disabled person ordinarily resident in the local authority area where the local authority is satisfied that this is necessary to meet the needs of that person. Paragraph (e) covers “the provision of assistance for that person in arranging for the carrying out of any works of adaption in his home or the provision of any additional facilities designed to secure his greater safety, comfort, or convenience.” The recent delivery guidance at paras 2.26-2.27 states:

Where the social care authority determines that a need has been established it is their duty to assist, even where the housing authority is unable to approve or to fully fund an application. So for example, where an applicant for DFG has difficulty in meeting their assessed contribution from the DFG means test or the work will cost more than the upper limit, the social care authority can step in to provide financial assistance. Or if a disabled person is assessed as needing an adaptation which is outside the scope of the statutory DFG duty, then the social care authority can provide it.

Social care authorities may also consider using their powers under the Care Act 2014 to charge for their services where appropriate

Means testing

DFGs are mandatory, subject to a means test and an upper grant limit. The test of resources for grant applications is set out in the Housing Renewal Grant Regulations 1996.  Grant applications may receive a full grant or may be required to contribute towards the cost of works. The maximum grant limit in England is set out in the Disabled Facilities Grants (Maximum Amounts and Additional Purposes) (England) Order 2008 at £30,000, while in Wales it is £36,000.

How much you get usually depends on your:

• – household income
• – household savings over £6,000

Disabled children under 18 can get a grant without their parents’ income being taken into account.

The actual amount of DFG that someone can get depends on the income and savings of the disabled person (and their partner), even if the disabled person has not actually applied for the grant (such as when an application is made by a landlord with a disabled tenant).

The Social Care White Paper ‘People at the Heart of Care: adult social care reform (updated March 2022) said that the Government ‘recognise that the means test underpinning the DFG is complex and can be difficult to navigate’ and promised to consult publicly on aligning the means test with adult social care charging reforms.  This has yet to take place.

Research published by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) in 2011 identified four stages within the means testing process:

• – Assessing how much the household needs to live on (known as the allowable income)
• – Compare with the household’s actual income to see if they have any ‘surplus; they could use to pay off a loan.  A tariff income is added for any savings over £6,000. If the household receives any means tested benefits, they are automatically passported through and receive a 100% grant, even if they have a small surplus income.Those  not in receipt of means tested benefits must calculate how big a loan they could afford to pay off. 
• – The size of the affordable loan is compared with the cost of the work needed to see if they qualify for a grant. 

Recent DFG delivery guidance published in March 2022 by DHSC suggests that authorities should carry out a preliminary means test as an early warning to applicants that they may need to make a contribution (para. 4.31).

Additionally, an applicant can be passported through the means test if they are already in receipt of means tested welfare benefits, as Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) benefits data can be accessed through an online customer information system called Searchlight, so local authorities do not have to collect this information from the applicant. (DFG Delivery Guidance, para. 6.16)

Some local authorities have even removed the means test for certain types of work to speed up the grant delivery process. For example, Manchester and Dorset removed the test for grants under £5,000, and with additional ICB funding, Wigan removed the test for households assessed by occupational therapists to be ‘at risk’ of going in to hospital or residential care (Independent Review of the Disabled Facilities Grant, para. 5.22).

The mandatory nature of the grant, in terms of the law

Section 24 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 provides for the mandatory nature of the disabled facilities grant.  In R v Birmingham CC ex p Taj Mohammed [1999] 1 WLR 33, the High Court ruling stated that local housing authorities are not entitled to have regard to their financial resources in determining whether or not to improve an application for a DFG for purposes within s.23(1) of the 1996 Housing Grants Construction and Regeneration Act.

One can apply for a Disabled Facilities Grant even if the council decides one doesn’t have eligible care needs, because they’re based on separate and legally distinct criteria.

Grants are not approved unless the authority is satisfied that the works applied for are “necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled occupant.”

If the housing authority is a non-unitary district council in a non-metropolitan county, the housing authority must consult a social services authority (if they are not one themself). 

 in order to approve an application, the local housing authority must be satisfied that the works are both ‘necessary and appropriate’ for the needs of the disabled person, and ‘reasonable and practicable’  in relation to the property.

The authority must notify an applicant ‘as soon as reasonably practical’ and no later than six months after the date of the application (s.34). The recently updated guidance for local authorities set out indicative timescales at para. B115 of no longer than 4 weeks where an authority or home improvement agency has prepared the application.

Section 36 of that Act was amended by the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 (SI 2002/1860), Sch.3, with effect from July 18, 2003 to allow local authorities to approve a grant on terms that payment of the grant, or part of it, will not be made before a date specified in the notification of their decision on the application. Section 36(2) allows this date to be up to 12 months after the date of the application. This section followed a number of incidents where local authorities complained of an inability to pay mandatory grants due to (1) government spending constraints or (2) difficulty managing budgetary processes. It was envisaged that authorities would only need to use this measure ‘sparingly and in exceptional cases.’  Similarly, the most recent guidance for local authorities states that powers under s.36 should be used sparingly and ‘not where it would cause hardship or suffering to an applicant whose adaptation needs have been assessed as urgent.’

Remedies: judicial review and the ombudsman

Judicial review can be used to challenge the refusal of a DFG.

In one case, R (on the application of McKeown) v Islington LBC [2020] EWHC 779 (Admin) a local authority refused a disabled facilities grant despite acknowledging that a platform lift was the only way a disabled tenant could access her maisonette. The High Court quashed the authority’s decision that the tenant should move as the accommodation was also unsuitable for other reasons, rather than adapt the property.

The judge pointed out that the “considerations taken into account by (the Council) did not relate just to the age or condition of the dwelling but rather to the suitability of the dwelling for the Claimant’s care needs…. it cannot be said that the lack of suitability in various respects of a person’s home excludes such a person from access to a grant in order to facilitate the basic need of accessing/exiting the home….in my judgment it is not lawful to refuse a DFG on the ground that the Claimant must move her home.”

In another case, Gulrez, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Redbridge [2022] EWHC 2908 (Admin) the High Court held that a local authority’s policy to refuse all adaptations to be used as a backup was unlawful. The court quashed the authority’s decision to refuse a backup stairlift for use when an existing through floor lift broke down. 

Firstly, the judge noted that the Court of Appeal had been clear in R (B) v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 1 WLR 2017 that a key objective of s23(1)(b) of the Act was that DFGs are intended to make a ‘dwelling as safe as reasonably practicable’. A service contract for the main would not eliminate a risk, and, therefore, there was no obvious reason why a back-up lift could not provide additional safety. It followed that a failure to fund contingency backups at a policy level potentially undermined the statutory objective contained in the Act and that was unlawful. 

Secondly, despite the local authority arguing that they took this decision in light of the age and condition of the property in issue, this did not mean that the decision was compliant with s24(3)(b) of the 1996 Act. The judgments in ex p Mohammed andMcKeown demonstrated that it was not enough to merely have regard to the age and condition of a property; they were only factors to be considered in the decision-making process. 

Thirdly, the defendants focused on ‘the most reasonable and practicable option’, which the judge held to be a flawed approach. Where two adaptations are sought, it was necessary to consider whether both met the tests in s23 and s24 of the Act. 

Fourthly, any such arguments that funding the backups would impose an ‘excessive financial burden’ on local authorities was mitigated to a degree by the £30,000 cap on DFGs. If that was not sufficient, then it was for Parliament to amend the Act. 

This Gulrez judgment is key for local authorities in relation to their policies surrounding disabled facilities grants. Whereas it was accepted that a local authority has professional discretion in making a judgment as to whether statutory criteria were met, of significance was the judge’s caveat that the duty needed to be discharged where such criteria were met – in such cases, the question of ordinary public law discretion did not come into play, even though the duty that is triggered is predicated on the question of reasonableness.

The full judgment in relation to this case can be found here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2022/2908.html

The work should be completed within 12 months of the grant being approved.

More about DFGs – the history and the issues

Disability Facilities Grants are means tested capital grants administered by local housing authorities to contribute to the costs of adaptations required to enable eligible disabled people to continue living safely and independently at home. 

The grant (DFG) is a capital grant paid from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) to local authorities in England to adapt older and disabled people’s homes to help them to live independently and safely.

Adaptations can include ramps, stair lifts and suitable heating systems.

The DFG is a mandatory grant and was introduced in 1989 as one of a number of grants designed to improve the poorest housing stock, though all other housing and renewal and improvement grants introduced in the original legislation have been discontinued and only the DFG remains. 

As it is a mandatory grant, local authorities have a legal requirement to provide help for people who meet the eligibility criteria, whether or not the authority has a sufficient budget to do so.

However, despite its mandatory nature, over the years there have been continual criticisms about DFG delivery. A House of Commons Select Committee report in 2018 described the DFG process as ‘clunky’ and noted the significant variety in waiting times between local authorities.  Another one in 2024 from the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee (Disabled people in the housing sector) reported that no response to the recommendations had even been made by government to the 2018 report.

Similarly, an Equality and Human Rights Commission report described the grant delivery process as too slow. It found that 1 in 5 disabled people in social housing live in unsuitable accommodation; and that just 7% of homes in England have the most basic accessibility features.

In 2022, research by Habinteg Housing Association found that a wheelchair user joining a local authority waiting list may have to wait up to 47 years for a new build wheelchair-accessible home. With the number of disabled people in England rising each year, there is simply not enough accessible housing to meet the rising demand. This poses a clear and direct risk to the dignity, health, and wellbeing of disabled people across the country.

Why were DFGs subsumed into the Better Care Fund?

The DFG, which has run for more than 30 years, became part of the Better Care Fund (BCF) in April 2015.

The DFG aims to support disabled and older people to be independent, enabling carers to continue their role safely, preventing accidents and helping people to return from hospital. It therefore crosses the boundaries between housing, health and social care and reflects the increasing national focus on the integration of housing with health and social care services.

The guidance circular that accompanied the 1996 Act stated that it was ‘for housing authorities and social services authorities between them to decide how particular adaptations should be funded’, either through what is now the 2014 Care Act or through a DFG. Pooling of budgets had been lawful since 1999, including with housing authorities, under s31 of the Health Act.

Funding in England is now pooled under s75 of the NHS Act 2006 into the Better Care Fund (BCF), which aims to improve integration of care and support services. BCF encourages integration by requiring integrated care systems and local authorities to enter into pooled budget arrangements and agree an integrated spending plan.  https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/part-rel/transformation-fund/better-care-fund/

The BCF achieves this by requiring integrated care boards (ICBs) and local government to agree a joint plan, owned by the health and wellbeing board (HWB), governed by an agreement under s75 NHS Act. The legislation only allows the functions to be cross delegated and funding pooled for the task; it does not alter the freedoms or limitations of the underlying legislation imposing the functions in the first place. The legal framework for health and social services output is different in terms of the nature of the duties imposed, but this is not ever explained by government guidance to the people working on the joint strategy, in our experience. Pooling is done by reference to client cohorts or place based projects, rather than at the level of the function itself, and we think that this is part of the problem.

The government published updated guidance for local authorities on 28 March 2022 that sets out how they can effectively and efficiently deliver DFG funded adaptations to best serve the needs of local older and disabled people.

This guidance highlights how housing authorities can use government funding for the DFG more flexibly under the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 (RRO) – see chapter 3.

The Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002 gives councils greater powers to provide discretionary assistance. This may take the form of low cost loans and equity release as well as grants to private homeowners and others to help them to renovate, repair or adapt their home. The Order also enables councils to provide other sorts of assistance, for example, helping someone move to more suitable living accommodation if it is satisfied that this would provide a similar benefit to improving or adapting the existing accommodation.

More information can be found here: https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/legal/housing_conditions/local_authority_duties_to_deal_with_poor_conditions/local_authority_grants_and_loans_for_improvements_and_repairs

Local housing authorities are expected to develop and publish a Housing Assistance Policy under the RRO to help people to live independently before people get to the point of needing a DFG.

Policies can include measures to speed up DFG delivery – for example, a local authority could develop a simplified system to deliver small-scale adaptations more quickly. Policies can also establish schemes to support rapid discharge of people from hospital, or to prevent admission to hospital or residential care.

Authorities may spend Government funding for the DFG in three ways:

• – Approving DFGs in accordance with Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
• – Providing housing assistance in accordance with a locally published Housing Assistance Policy under Regulatory Reform Order powers.
• – Using a portion of DFG funding for other social care capital funding purposes (as locally agreed with the district council in two-tier areas).

Problems found by countless research studies;

The £30,000 upper limit for individual DFGs has not increased since 2008 which would be £47,000 in 2024.

The DFG means test is complex to navigate and deters people from applying.

The provision of local authority support and advice for residents navigating the DFG process is inconsistent across England.

There is tenure inequity, with a high proportion of grants going to social housing providers when disabled people are increasingly in the private rented sector.

Disabled people in the private rented sector and in social housing may have to seek their landlord’s permission to make accessibility adaptations to their home. Currently, the Equality Act 2010 stipulates that landlords cannot unreasonably withhold consent for home adaptations that improve accessibility for disabled tenants but people who could be subject to no fault eviction may be deterred in any event.

Social Housing tenants’ DFG eligibility

Although the DFG framework and mandatory aspect of the grant apply across all tenures, local authorities cannot use their DFG budget to fund adaptations to local authority properties – instead, they must fund adaptions to their own stock from their Housing Revenue Account resources.  The same applies to applications from tenants living in dwellings managed by an Arms-Length Management Organisation (ALMO) but owned by the local authority (Para. 2.8). This means that many councils simply make the leap from that position to saying that DFGs are not available to council housed direct tenants, but the Ombudsman regards that as contrary to the law. We are not so sure, because whilst a council landlord cannot refuse consent unreasonably to a disabled tenant’s request for consent to make an adaptation, the landlord need not pay for it just because the tenant is disabled; the decision-making function is different, and it is arguable that the landlord’s prioritisation scheme for maintenance and repairs is what is in play.

The ombudsman puts its approach to ‘law’ down to a combined reading of “a combined reading of Section 1.2 and Section 5.1 of the ‘Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for local authorities in England.’ All that the first section says is Disabled Facilities Grants are capital grants that are available to people of all ages and in all housing tenures (i.e. whether renting privately, from a social landlord or council, or owner-occupiers) to contribute to the cost of adaptations. All that the latter says is this: ‘Local housing authorities have a duty to consider all formal DFG applications.’

Section 2.8 says this:
“Government funding for the Disabled Facilities Grant is intended to fund adaptations for owner occupiers, private tenants, or tenants of private registered providers (housing associations). Eligible council tenants can apply for a DFG in the same way as any other applicant. However local housing authorities with a Housing Revenue Account (HRA) should self-fund home adaptations for council tenants through this account. A provision was made for expenditure in the HRA as a ‘Disabled Facilities Allowance’ in the 2012-13 self-financing settlement, alongside information on how to calculate it in subsequent years. The same applies to applications from tenants living in dwellings managed by an Arms-Length Management Organisation (ALMO) but owned by the local authority.”

To our eyes, this is just an assertion of the fact that the rules regarding the Housing Revenue Account in local government finance law cut across the comprehensiveness of the duty to consider DFGs for all. More explanation of the law is required, regarding all tenures being covered, and the duty being mandatory, once triggered. The decision making regarding the statutory reasons for saying No, is a different process to that of deciding whether to instigate capital works for one’s own maintained housing stock, but the DFG duty is explicit and comes first. We appreciate that if there is no money to be received for them, UNDER the specific DFG grant funding determinations by central government, it might FEEL as if there is no real difference between saying ‘We don’t do them for our own or ALMO tenants’ on the one hand, and ‘Whilst we accept that we must consider them, the fact that we have don’t get any money for them, and are obliged to do any adaptations as part of the capital works programme means in fact we will say that it’s not ‘necessary’, because there is this other route that we will offer first, but according to our own priorities…, just like we do when we act under the Regulatory Refom Order and try fifteen other solutions first – so it’s just shorthand to say that we will never say yes’ – but the case law seems to suggest that there IS an important difference. The DFG decision must come at some point, which becomes impossible if one takes the position that one need not even CONSIDER an application from a council tenant.

The McKeown (Islington) case (in 2020, before the Government’s refresh of its DFT guidance) involved a council tenant with an amputation; it was an application refused by Islington, but at least considered. The judicial review quashed the refusal, and took the law on quite some distance, in favour of tenants, regarding the limitation of the legitimate approaches to reasonable, practicable, necessary and appropriate, to the specific purpose for the application in question, rather than general considerations to do with the proportionality of the expense to the general condition of the building etc.

In summing up the judge said, in McKeown, “the existence of mandatory grants is extremely rare and that rarity illustrates that the mindset of the decision-making authority must not be to search for grounds to refuse the grant but in good faith to limit its examination to the relevant matters”. 

The judge also commented that Islington had confused its separate roles as landlord of council housing and decision maker for DFGs – and that availability of suitable alternative accommodation was not a valid reason for refusing a DFG. It was recognised that the offer to facilitate a move is good practice, but as the legislation covers all tenures, a council cannot force a tenant to move any more than it could an owner occupier.  Making a mandatory grant conditional up on a non-statutory factor was not allowed.

You can read more about that case here: https://www.foundations.uk.com/r-v-islington-mckeown/

Timescales

The legislation says little about how the grant process should work, other than stating that:

• The grant cannot be approved if works have already started;
• There is a need to consult the social services authority; and
• A decision notice is to be issued within 6 months of the date of application.

That is, a maximum period of 6 months for a local authority to decide an application (see Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) delivery: Guidance for Local Authorities in England at para. 5.28), once one has been made.

This timescale is to allow for cases where an application is developed independently of a local authority, but they are still able to be the decision-makers on whether the application made counts as an application, it is suspected.

However, the most recently published guidance states that the vast majority of approvals will be a straightforward process of checking the details gathered during the application stage and should take no longer than 5 working days for an urgent case or 20 working days for a non-urgent case.

The most recently published Government guidance for local authorities delivering DFG grants sets out the following indicative timescales (para. 4.16)

Target timescales (working days)
Stage/	Urgent and simple	Non-urgent & simple	Urgent & complex	Non-urgent & complex
	5	20	20	35
	25	50	45	55
	5	20	5	20
	20	40	60	80
Total	55	130	130	180

However, as noted in the most recent Independent Review (at paras. 7.11 to 7.14), it is difficult to determine end-to-end processing times with any accuracy due to the way services cross administrative boundaries, and because of the different approaches taken by different local authorities. 

DFG teams with minimal, ad-hoc or traditional arrangements (where occupational therapists are based in other departments or in county offices) often do not know the date of first enquiry or how long a person has waited for an occupational therapy assessment.  Housing teams may not be able to access social care IT systems to look this up. 

Delays experienced by applicants may not just be with the housing authority: they may have already spent six months or more on a waiting list for an assessment before getting to the application stage.  Authorities may also manipulate dates by not allowing the application to count as being made, until it is known that it can be approved within the statutory timescale (Independent Review of the Disability Facilities Grant, para. 15.46-15.47).

Pre-decision issues and DFG exclusions

A recent independent review of DFG provision identified four stages where people may decide to stop seeking a DFG. Due to a paucity of data, it is difficult to identify exact reasons or numbers of individuals who are unable to access DFG funding that they may be legally entitled to:

1. Before reaching the local authority or home improvement agency.  In most areas DFG is not advertised, information on local authority websites may be poorly displayed, or is accessed through confusing automated telephone systems.  Specific groups may be excluded from accessing DFGs due to overlapping vulnerabilities or patterns of exclusion such as digital exclusion, or cognitive difficulties that make an already opaque and confusing process all the more so.
2. At the social care desk: local authorities with significant pressures on social care budgets may exclude people, sometimes inadvertently, as social care eligibility is different from DFG eligibility.
3. At the assessment stage: some people may be given equipment or minor adaptations; others may have a preliminary means test and realise they would not be eligible for a DFG. Others may decide they do not wish to proceed further with local authority help. There is no source of data for who might have been eligible for a DFG who drops out at this stage.
4. At the referral stage: when the assessment has been completed and the case referred, but it does not proceed to grant application.

Post-decision issues

In 2022, following a complaint about Birmingham City Council, the Local Government and Adult Social Care ombudsman issued a reminder to local authorities of the importance of ensuring their DFG processes are transparent and accountable. 

A family including a child with disabilities was left without essential home adaptations due to confusion around who was responsible for the work.   Rather than providing a grant for people to commission their own builders to complete the work, the council provided the grant and had a list of approved contractors.  The family’s development ran into difficulties and they had concerns about the quality of the workmanship.  However, the council was found to lack the procedures and policies necessary to identify what action they should take to investigate the concerns and identify if the work was of an appropriate standard. As a result of the complaint, the Ombudsman recommended that the council improve their DFG process, highlighting the responsibilities of each party.