G v Redbridge 2022

Key Points

Redbridge stated that:
“The role of the OT in the DFG assessment is to determine what is necessary and appropriate, and the role of the Home Improvement team is to determine what is reasonable and practicable.”

However, when deciding if any proposed adaptations are “reasonable and practicable” the Local Authority can only consider matters relating to the age and condition of the building. Whether the works are reasonable and practicable in any other sense are irrelevant.

This means that the judgement of what is “necessary and appropriate” takes on more significance and shouldn’t solely be centred on an OT’s assessment, as Redbridge has done.

If in this case the Home Improvement Team had used their arguments to say that the backup stairlift wasn’t “necessary and appropriate” they may have got a different result.

The Claimant is a 33-year-old man with profound and multiple disabilities, including blindness and a need for full-time wheelchair use. He is entirely dependent on others for his basic self-care needs, such as feeding, dressing, and bathing. The Claimant lives with his parents in a four-bedroom semi-detached house where his bedroom and bathroom are situated on the first floor. Accessibility between these rooms and the ground floor is facilitated by a through-floor lift, situated in a corner of the kitchen diner.

The first such lift was installed in the property back in 1997, with a replacement following in 2015. Most recently, another lift was fitted in September 2022. In July 2021, following difficulties with the lift, an Occupational Therapist (OT) was called in to assess the situation. The visit was prompted by an application for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). One notable incident had occurred between 21 and 22 December 2020, when the lift had failed. This left the Claimant stranded on the ground floor, requiring a manual transfer that was described as dangerous.

The OT completed a report on 23 August 2021, stating that the existing lift system was not effectively meeting the Claimant’s needs and that a suitable backup option needed to be identified. A stairlift was assessed as being “necessary and appropriate”.

The Local Authority refused an application for a DFG to fund a stairlift based on the following:

One Piece of Equipment: Initially, it was stated that the DFG could only cover one major piece of equipment. In this case, a through-floor lift was already in place. Later correspondence suggested that while there isn’t an official limit to the number of adaptations, the practice is not to grant multiple items that serve the same purpose.

Safety Concerns: They raised concerns about the safety of manual moving and handling associated with the stairlift. They also pointed out that a similar idea was ruled out due to safety concerns a decade ago.

Contingency Plan: The authority believes that the through-floor lift, along with a robust warranty and 24/7 call-out service, serves as a sufficient contingency plan in case of breakdowns.

Reasonable and Practicable: It was argued that replacing the existing through-floor lift was the most ‘reasonable and practicable’ solution and negated the need for a stairlift as a backup option.

Financial Concerns: The authority aims to offer the best value for public money, and they believe the warranty and call-out service for the through-floor lift achieve this without needing a second piece of equipment like a stairlift.

The Claimant argues that the existing through-floor lift is not a reliable solution for his needs, citing instances where the lift failed, leaving him stuck on the ground floor. This is particularly concerning given his profound and multiple disabilities. He believes that having a stairlift as a backup is essential for his safety and accessibility. The Claimant contends that a warranty and 24/7 callout service for the through-floor lift are not sufficient contingencies, as there’s no guarantee of immediate repair. Consequently, the Claimant’s solicitors have alleged that the decision not to provide a stairlift is unlawful.

The defence, put forth by Redbridge asserts several points. Firstly, they argue that the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) can only cover one major piece of equipment, so funding both a through-floor lift and a stairlift is not possible. Secondly, they claim that having a warranty and a 24/7 callout service for the through-floor lift should suffice as a contingency plan. Thirdly, they point out that safety concerns regarding manual moving and handling had led them to opt for a through-floor lift over a stairlift in the past. They reiterate that with a new through-floor lift in place, the likelihood of a breakdown that couldn’t be promptly fixed would be reduced. Lastly, they state that in the event of a lift breakdown, support and assistance would be provided to the service user until the through-floor lift is fixed.