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

The court allowed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant's refusal of a disabled facilities grant (DFG) under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. The judge held that the claimant had established eligibility under section 23(1) because the proposed platform lift would facilitate access to and from the dwelling, and that sections 23 and 24 must be applied sequentially (the gateway in section 23(1) and the control in section 24(3)).

The court analysed the meaning of the statutory terms "needs of the disabled occupant", "necessary and appropriate" and "reasonable and practicable". It concluded that the relevant needs for the application in this case were the claimant's needs to access and exit her home, not a broader assessment of the dwelling's general suitability for long-term care needs. Many of the grounds relied on by the defendant (internal stair use on "bad days", lack of wheelchair accessibility of the toilet, kitchen and bathroom, and prospective unsuitability for long-term care needs) were not relevant considerations under section 24(3).

The court further held that uncertainties as to planning permission, structural surveys or additional costs are not lawful bases to refuse a grant where they are preliminary or ancillary matters capable of being dealt with as part of the grant process, and that the decision failed adequately to set out the reasoned basis for anticipating that costs would exceed the quoted sum. The defendant's decision was quashed and the matter was remitted for redetermination within a specified short timetable.

Background and parties. The claimant, a 63 year old secure council tenant who is wheelchair dependent following an above-knee amputation, applied for a disabled facilities grant to fund an external platform lift to enable access to and exit from her garden maisonette. The defendant is the London Borough of Islington which refused the application by its decision dated 22 November 2019.

Nature of the claim and relief sought. This was a first instance judicial review claim seeking mandatory relief to compel the defendant to approve the claimant's DFG application and to commission the works expeditiously. The core legal provisions were sections 23 and 24 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.

Issues framed by the court. The court identified the principal issues as (i) whether the proposed works were "necessary and appropriate" to meet the claimant's needs within the meaning of section 24(3)(a), and (ii) whether the works were "reasonable and practicable" having regard to the age and condition of the dwelling under section 24(3)(b). The court considered what constitutes the claimant's "needs" for those tests, and whether the decision-maker lawfully took into account irrelevant factors (for example overall housing suitability, internal layout shortcomings, future care needs) or failed to give adequate reasons for concluding that costs would exceed the contractor's quotation.

Court's reasoning and findings. The court emphasised statutory purpose and scheme, adopting authorities on construction of statutory duties. It held that the gateway in section 23(1) (purposes for which approval must be given) was satisfied because the lift would facilitate access to and from the dwelling. On section 24(3), the claimant's relevant needs were confined to accessing and exiting the home; broader assessments of the dwelling's suitability for other care needs were not matters for the section 24(3)(a) inquiry. The judge adopted the established approach to "necessary and appropriate" (drawing on prior authorities) and concluded that the defendant's reasons rejecting the application relied in part on irrelevant considerations and in part on inadequately supported factual findings (notably as to likely additional costs and future deterioration of transfer ability). The court found the refusal inadequately reasoned as to anticipated costs above the contractor's quote and that matters such as planning permission, surveys or excavation issues were either preliminary or ancillary matters and not proper grounds for refusal without further specific justification.

Remedy and ancillary rulings. The court granted the claim for judicial review, quashed the defendant's decision and ordered a redetermination. The judge declined to make an order compelling the defendant to commission works because the statutory scheme contemplates the applicant commissioning the works unless the local authority's own policy provides otherwise; the court gave guidance that the redetermination should be completed within ten weeks given the claimant's urgent need and the exceptional rarity of mandatory grants.

Wider observations. The court noted the statutory distinction between duties in different regimes (for example housing allocation and DFGs) and warned against importing wider housing suitability tests into the DFG decision process. The judgment highlighted the scarcity of mandatory grants and the need for decision-makers to focus on the statutory criteria in section 24.

The claim for judicial review was allowed. The court quashed the defendant's decision refusing the disabled facilities grant because the decision-maker took into account considerations outside the statutory tests in sections 24(3)(a) and (b), failed to give adequate reasons on anticipated excess costs and wrongly treated preliminary/ancillary matters as grounds for refusal. The matter was remitted for redetermination and the court directed that reconsideration should not exceed ten weeks.