B, R (on the application of) v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council

A mandatory disabled facilities grant is available only where the proposed works have a purpose within Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, section 23(1), and the works are necessary and appropriate under section 24(3). These are distinct questions: a grant for a prescribed purpose must not be treated as discretionary. Section 23(1)(b) requires works intended to make the dwelling safe, not merely safer, although safety is necessarily relative. The provision may protect other residents as well as the disabled occupant, but the works must also be intended to make the dwelling safe for the disabled person and meet that person’s needs. An additional bedroom did not satisfy the statutory test where the danger arose from wider behavioural problems that the works would not resolve.

The claimant sought judicial review of Calderdale’s refusal to provide a mandatory disabled facilities grant for converting the loft of the family home into an additional bedroom. His son, DB, was disabled and had challenging behaviour, including aggression towards siblings and self-injury. The Council considered that an extra bedroom would be helpful but concluded that the application did not fall within section 23(1)(b), and that the works were not shown to be necessary and appropriate under section 24(3).

The claimant alleged that the Council had taken irrelevant matters into account, failed to consider ministerial guidance, and acted irrationally. The central issues were the meaning of making a dwelling safe and the relationship between sections 23(1) and 24(3).

1. Claim dismissed. The Council’s decision was not liable to be quashed.
2. Section 23 concerns the purpose of the proposed works, whereas section 24(3) concerns whether those works are necessary and appropriate. The latter question arises only after the works have been shown to serve a purpose within section 23(1). Conflating the questions risks treating a mandatory grant as discretionary.
3. Section 23(1)(b) differs from the other listed purposes because it refers to the safety of the disabled occupant and other residents and requires the dwelling to be made safe, rather than merely safer. Safety remains a relative concept, because no premises are entirely free from risk.
4. The purpose of the works need not be principally the safety of the disabled occupant. Works may fall within section 23(1)(b) where they protect other residents from risks connected with the disabled person. Nevertheless, the works must also be intended to make the dwelling safe for the disabled person and must meet that person’s needs for the purposes of section 24(3).
5. Calderdale had asked whether DB and the other occupants were unsafe and whether an additional bedroom would make the house safe. Its conclusion that the bedroom would alleviate behavioural problems but would not make the house safe was open to it. DB’s aggression was not confined to the shared bedroom, and the proposed works would not resolve the wider problem.
6. The Council was entitled to consider DB’s behaviour at school, an attack outside the home, and earlier professional assessments, provided appropriate weight was given to their age. The ministerial guidance had been considered. The decision was supported by substantial reasons and was not perverse.
7. The judge added that, if section 23(1)(b) had applied, the needs of the disabled person could include the need not to cause unintended injury to siblings. The application for judicial review was nevertheless dismissed.

The judgment records that the claimant had referred the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman, who declined to intervene. The judicial review claim was then filed in the Administrative Court. Permission to appeal was granted after judgment.