Agenda and minutes

The Committee noted the evacuation and housekeeping procedure.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve the minutes of the last meeting held on 13 May 2024

AGREED the minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2024 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive evidence from Council Officers as part of the Scrutiny Review of Disabled Facilities Grant

The Committee received a presentation from the review’s link officer, the Housing Regeneration & Investment Manager. The presentation covered:

·       SBC Duties

·       SBC DFG Policy

·       Eligible works

·       Enquiry Process

·       Application Process

·       Approvals Process

·       Grant Conditions

·       Land Charges

·       Undertaking Works

·       Local Discretion and Flexibilities

·       Government Recommendations 2018

Key issues discussed included:

• The assessment of need is carried out by the Occupational Therapist. As part of this assessment, they would question if the person would consider moving e.g. move to a bungalow/ground floor flat if they have mobility issues.
• Discussion took place regarding the mean testing of the grant, the baseline of which had not changed since 2008, and contributions. Some people applying might qualify for a DFG but would not be given the full amount to cover the cost of adaptations due to their income. Also, dependent on the adaptations needed to be carried out, works could cost over the £30,000 limit, and the example was given of an extension that cost £90,000. In these cases, the person would have to contribute the remaining cost of the works. Those that were in receipt of certain means-tested benefits were ‘passported’ to a full grant and would not need to contribute to adaptations up to £30,000.
• SBC would pay the costs of adaptations to a property outside of the Borough if it was for a child placed in care outside of the Borough. This system was reciprocated, and it was noted that Durham Council had paid for adaptations to a property in the Borough where a child under their care was living.
• The number of people on the waiting list had increased since reporting at the previous meeting and was now at 284. The Occupational Therapist could decide if a person was fast tracked to the top of the list due to their need following a detailed risk assessment. People on the waiting list were sent an income form to see if they would qualify to save them being on the list if they did not quality. Each person on the waiting list was contacted every three months to keep them up to date on the process and how long it was expected to take. It was questioned if the NHS were installing at a quicker pace to SBC to aid hospital discharge, but the link officer was not aware of this and explained that hospital discharge usually came through SBC’s Occupational Therapist Team.
• SBC would only fund the minimum specification required to meet the persons need, and would refuse anything that was above this, however the person would be able to fund adaptations above the basic offer themselves.
• Equipment was recovered when the person no longer required it so that it could be reused. It was indicated in the contract when adaptations were provided that they/the family would need to get in contact when they were no longer needed so they could be recovered.
• If a person broke the conditions of the grant, for example using a different contractor to the one specified, then  ...  view the full minutes text for item PEO/16/24

Consideration was given to the Work Programme.

The next meeting would be held on Monday 8 July 2024. The Committee wished to invite Foundations to the meeting to give evidence regarding best practice in other Local Authority areas as well as a review of SBC’s policy. Members also indicated that they wished to invite the Director of Adults Health and Wellbeing to a future meeting to feedback on the meeting with Registered Providers.

AGREED that the Work Programme be noted.