Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Foundations January Webinar: Paul Smith | Foundations | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Foundations January Webinar: Paul Smith
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
This content explains the robust decision-making process for Disabled Facilities Grants (DFGs), emphasizing that while mandatory grants are rare, authorities must act in good faith to assess applications based on specific criteria, not to arbitrarily refuse them.
[Music]
right um to round off the afternoon then
what I wanted to do was
um go
through DFG decision making and uh it's
been mentioned a couple of times today
but just wanted to um go through with
you how you'd make a robust DFG decision
because what things that we often get
asked are can I give a DFG for this can
I give a DFG for that and it's it's kind
of really difficult to say just based on
on that kind of um thing 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 Grants refuse
the grant but in good faith to limits ex
examination to the relevant matters so
this was from a case which I'll be
talking about in a few minutes time but
basically what the judge said was um
mandatory grants are very precious and
if you possibly can you should be trying
yes but sometimes you do have to say no
because not everything somebody applies
for is going to be
um relevant for for a DFG so going to go
through a little bit of case law looking
at how to make a decision on your on
your DFG
and this was first case which called
should I stay or should I go which was a
case from um Islington in in London and
this isn't the actual property but um
I've be told it looks fairly similar to
the to the property involved and it's
involved on Mrs McKuen who was um an
amput like amput and um she needed to
get in and out of this it's kind proy
down these steps that um that you can
see on screen here and her sons were
kind carrying her up and down in
wheelchair to get her in and out of the
in and out of the
property and she applied to Islington C
for a grant to construct a um a pad and
and to have a um a platform lift
installed on the kind of the edge of the
pavement here so she could then get up
and down from the pavement into the
property itself and Islington uh refused
the Grant application
application
um so what is Linton said was when when
we mq and applied for this grant was
that um and she she's a council tenant
and I said that there altern alternative
properties available that Mrs Muran can
move to um was about miles so
away I said it wasn't reasonable and
practicable to provide the lift um
partly because of the the cost of it and
they also said that the rest of the
property wouldn't be suitable that um
kind have access to the bedroom and the
bathroom actually when she got inside
the property was still going be quite
problematic so they refused the Grant on
those on that
basis and Mrs McAn then applied for
judici judicial
review so kind of the first issue was
well K can you refuse to adapt and
suggest a move
instead and what the Jude said was well
it's definitely good practice to have
that conversation and to look at the
Alternatives that that may be a better
outcome for people but you can't refuse
a valid DFG application just because you
as a local Authority think that there is
a better option out there if the uh if
the applicant
disagrees that that's from a DFG
perspective um what unfortunately
Islington didn't test was whether as a
social landlord they could withhold
permissions for the adaptations as they
believe it's not best use to their stock
um isn't didn't mention that in the case
but clearly what the judge said was that
from a DFG perspective and and in this
case Islington was both the DFG decision
maker and the landlord was that from a
DFG perspective you can't refuse a grant
just because you think there somebody
better somewhere better that somebody
to um and then I started looking at the
eligible Works um particularly the bit
about reasonable and
practicable and
um hopefully you go a minute that there
are kind of two stages to a DFG test for
eligible works first is do the works
meet the purposes which I will go
through in second which is a fairly
objective assessment and then are those
works that's and appropriate and
reasonable and practicable which is a
bit more
subjective which always depends on the
individual circumstances so you do have
to follow this process um if you're
going to make a robust decision what we'
come up with is this um come diagram to
hopefully try and explain to you how it
works so across the top there we have
the 12 purposes for which the grant must
be approved so things like access to the
home access to a bath access to wash
basin through to um better eating or
cooking making the home safer and access
to the Garden so for a grant to be
approve or for Works to be approved for
a grant um the adaptations you're
proposing must meet one of those
purposes then you look at whether it's
necess appropriate reason or
practicable um and if it all is then you
get your eligible work your proposed
Works turns into your eligible
work so for this case we had uh proposed
works of a steplift and I've used a
basketball analogy here so uh proposed steplift
steplift
does it meet the purpose of providing
access to the home I think based on um
fairly straightforward assessment of
that a
steplift meets the purpose of being
access to a home so usually that purpose
bits uh a slam dunk that's the that's
that's little analogy for you but then
in this case is the steplift then
necessary and
appropriate and reasonal and practi
iable and if you remember islon said it
practicable
but in terms of of this case and this
this was one of the key points of this
case what the Jude said was that when
you're assessing necessary and
appropriate and reasonable and
practicable you can only take into
account things associated with the
purpose that um you're examining so in
this case when you're assessing whether
it's Nation appropriate reason practical
in terms of access to the home you can't
consider access to the shower can't
consider access to the toilet can't
consider access to the bedroom when
you're making this decision so when
Islington said that the rest of the home
wasn't suitable for in terms of access
to those facilities the judge said that
didn't matter you can only judge
necessary appropriate Reas and
practicable in relation to the
particular purpose that you're looking
home so we'll come back to the um
reasonal and practical bit in a second
when I've been through this the second
case and this this was from Redbridge
and it was a tale of of two lifts so it
was um an adult son who still lived with
his his parents profoundly disabled had
a number of adaptations over the
years and um had a through floor lift to
get access to his bedroom and show room
which which were on the first floor um
had a few through floor lifts and um few
years ago one had broken down i' had it
replaced and the new one wasn't as
reliable as previous ones and a few
times had been broken down and to get
him back upstairs they rolled him up in
a a duve and kind of kind of dragged him
up the stairs to get back to his um
bedroom and chair room which which
obviously isn't um very suitable and
what they'd asked for was a
stairlift to act as a backup in any
situations where the through floor lift
BR down in the
future um so a health OT went in and did
the assessment and said it was n
inappropriate for a stairlift provided
as a backup to the through floor lift in
case it breaks
down the application on that basis went
to Redbridge Council who refused the uh
refused the application um from the G
reses based on um they could only they
said they can only provide one item of
equipment that's um per purpose and they
they've already had a through floor lift
uh to access the bedroom so that's one
piece of equipment ticked off they said
that a warranty and service plan were a
suitable alternative to the um to the
stairlift and and to be a provision in
case of breakdown and they said on that
basis it wasn't reasonable and practical
to award a DFG for a
stairlift and the family applied for
judicial review to challenge that
decision so again so this is kind of
getting onto the cruxs of necess
appropriate and reasonable practicable
in terms of deciding the eligible works
and this is directly from the the
legislation that the haing authority
should um look at whether they're
satisfied that the relevant works so in
this this case the stairlift was n
inappropriate and that it's reasonable
works
but they didn't take into account this
bit so the reasonable and practical part
of the test only has regard to the age
and condition of the dwelling so the
dwelling in this case was um perfectly
satisfactory condition so they couldn't
say it wasn't reasonable practical to
carry out the works because there wasn't
any issue with the age and condition of
the dwelling they had accepted the
health OES view that it was necessary
and appropriate um to have the stairlift
and so um there obviously their decision
to not award the grant based on
reasonable practicable was found to be
wrong and so um the G review was was
granted so I think this and I think this
is fairly common held
belief that social care or the O OT
decides what is necess and appropriate
and housing or the grants officer
decides what's reasonable and
practicable in terms of kind of common
customer practice with with the fgs and
what this case is clearly saying is that
that's not correct where the decision
making actually happens is that housing
it's it's kind housing or the grants
officers decision on what is necessary
and appropriate and the OTL social care
are the consultee in that process and
from the reasonal Practical element of
the decision in the vast majority of
cases where the house isn't Falling Down
is is pretty much
relevant so um just bring me back to one
of my hobby horses on why Social
Services still do have panel meetings
for um for dfg's or in panel meetings in
any case actually this is of Care Act
guidance which said that um panels
shouldn't be used for routine decisions
and if you consider that social care is
only consulty on DFG um I don't there's
any reason why there should be panels
for um for dfg's you may have meetings
around complex cases but routine panels
uh should be a of the
past so if reasonable and practicable
isn't a key element of making decision
on what is um inappropriate to approve
for a DFG then we do need to think about
net in appropriate a little bit more so
these are the guiding principles that
came from Francis Haywood did um about
20 years ago that we included in the DFG
guidance that that came out um two years
ago now but what we felt was kind of on
the base of the Redbridge case that we
needed to take this on another step and
um for any occupation therapists that
are watching I'm sure you beware the the
person environment occupation po model
which um
notot which I wen't going to explain but
we kind looked at that and started to
look at how we could use it to develop a
more um objective and useful assessment
tool for what is necess and appropriate
for a
DFG looking at things like bodily
functions roles and routines values and
beliefs and physical environment
economic issues social and cultural
issues and things that are due to a
disability considering the Alternatives
so that led us on to this
um framework in terms of how to make a
decision on what is necessary and
appropriate on any individual DFG
application um the intention with this
isn't that it's a um kind of tick boox
exercise the idea with this is it gives
you a range of kind of categories and
considerations that that you would think
about when you're looking at whether an
adaptation or application is necess
necessar and
appropriate so looking at whether it's
necessary um due to disability whether
there are suitable Alternatives that are
available as we can saw with the earlier
case moving somewhere else may not
necessarily be a reason to um refuse a
grant but there may be other
Alternatives so in the in the other case
providing a warranty and a service plan
May be considered a suitable alternative
under and appropriate to providing that
that second lift looking whether it's
long-term and a sustainable solution
third part of the necessary element and
then um looking whether it's appropriate
to person in terms of body functions
roles and routines values and beliefs
and whether it's appropriate to the
environment or kind of property so it's
minimizing barriers to Independence in
and around the home um reducing care
costs the economic element and that it
will meet the social and cultural needs
of the family
family
so as I say it's not designed to be a
checkbox it's a list of factors to be
considered when you're come to a
judgment on these
cases so if we go back to the two cases
we've looked at and kind of run through
the decision- making process again
thinking about this um this new tool I
think in terms of
um the steplift
thinking about the considerations in
terms of n in
appropriate I think they they you
probably tick all of those box a tick
box exercise but having a through floor
LIF sorry having a platform lift um
probably is necess in appropriate based
on that set of
criteria um so proposed steplift is the
slam dunk in terms of meeting access to the
the
home and then if we're solely looking at
access to the home home and considering
n and
appropriate then um for stairlift the
basketball would then pass that test and
go into your basket of of eligible
Works our survey said but still on the
understanding that the landlord in that
case Islington could have said no it's
not a suitable use of our stock um as
the landlord potentially but um that
wasn't C in case law and then kind of
thinking about the uh three lift stft
case I think I'm looking at suitable
Alternatives probably the warranty and
the um um backup so not backup the um
service plan are potentially better
alternatives to me the need it can be
done safely so
stairlift and the judge kind of did look
at the stairlift as making the home
safer rather come access to the bedroom
because it was already an existing lift
so having the stair lift as a backup
and not having the the sun dropped
upstairs in a duvet I think you can
fairly objectively say that would make
the home safer but because
um there is an alternative solution that
might be better it's not necessarily
necessary and appropriate to do
particularly in terms of just looking at
making the home safer so that
application doesn't necessarily proceed
inappropriate so I hope that gives you a
bit more of an overview on how you can use
use
um that new kind of tool and making
framework to make better decisions
around um some of the more kind complex
DFG um DFG applications that you might
see and if you go to the um DFG
decisions guide on our website we've
published a decision- making tool where
you can see all the details of that um
that's in framework I just shared with
you in a handy form format that you
could use for for particular cases
download that as a PDF and um test it
for a new case you come up with um
really be interested to hear how that
works for you and get some feedback on
on how you finding it on particular
cases um so yeah please do go and
download that and uh we' love to hear
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
