McKeown, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Islington

Disabled facilities grant applications must be assessed by applying the statutory scheme to the particular purpose for which the grant is sought. Where the purpose is access to and from the dwelling, the relevant needs are those access needs. A housing authority must not substitute a general assessment of housing suitability or care needs.

The requirements that works be necessary and appropriate, and that it be reasonable and practicable to carry them out having regard to the dwelling’s age and condition, must be applied separately. A local authority tenant must be treated on the same basis as an owner-occupier. The authority cannot refuse a grant because the applicant should move home, or because other adaptations might also be desirable. An unlawful refusal is quashed and reconsidered; the court cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that required by the statute.

The claimant, a disabled secure tenant of the defendant, sought a disabled facilities grant under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 for a platform lift between her front garden and street level. Her disability prevented her from leaving or entering her home without assistance. The defendant refused the application, relying on the alleged unsuitability of the home, concerns about her wider care and mobility needs, possible planning and structural issues, and possible costs exceeding the statutory grant limit.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the defendant had misinterpreted the statutory tests in sections 23 and 24 and had taken irrelevant matters into account. The central issues were the meaning of the disabled occupant’s relevant needs, the scope of the necessary and appropriate test, the meaning of reasonable and practicable, and the proper remedy.

1. Grant eligibility. The platform lift fell within the purpose in section 23(1)(a) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, because it would facilitate access to and from the claimant’s dwelling. Section 23(1) operated as a gateway, while section 24(3) supplied the control applied to applications passing through that gateway.
2. Relevant needs. The needs in section 24(3)(a) were the needs served by the proposed works. Here they were the claimant’s need to access and leave her home. The authority could not apply a holistic assessment of her general care needs or import a housing-suitability test from another statutory scheme. The claimant’s tenure did not justify a different approach from that applicable to an owner-occupier.
3. Necessary and appropriate. Works were necessary and appropriate where they were necessary to meet the relevant needs and appropriate to meet them. The platform lift met that test because a stair lift would not overcome the remaining steps and the platform lift would allow wheelchair access. Difficulties using the internal stair lift, and deficiencies in the kitchen, toilet and bathroom, concerned different needs and were irrelevant to this application.
4. Reasonable and practicable. Section 24(3)(b) directed attention to the age and condition of the dwelling. It did not permit refusal because the dwelling was generally unsuitable for the claimant’s care needs. Possible planning permission, a structural survey, other adaptations, or uncertain additional costs did not justify refusal on the evidence. If cost was relied on, the authority had to explain the financial basis for asserting that the works would exceed the grant limit.
5. Remedy. The refusal was unlawful and was quashed. The court could not compel approval of the grant or substitute its own assessment for the authority’s statutory satisfaction. The application had to be reconsidered on the relevant material, within no more than ten weeks in the circumstances. The statutory six-month period for an initial decision did not govern this redetermination.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The defendant’s decision refusing the disabled facilities grant was quashed and the application was remitted for reconsideration.