Agenda item

Context:

Members received a report introduced by the Housing and Regeneration Manager and were asked to consider the capital budget provided to support Disabled Facilities grants (DFGs) and Safety at Home grants (SAHs) and the impact in relation to service performance  and on Social Care and Health Services.

Key Issues:

Under the provisions of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the Regulatory Reform (Housing Assistance) (England and Wales) Order 2002, the Council had a statutory duty to provide DFGs within six months of receiving a valid application.  Failure to do so would create the risk of legal challenge.  It also had discretion to provide SAHs.  Since 2006 a capital budget of £600,000 had been provided annually to fund grants. Broadly, the budget was split into £500,000 to support DFGs and £100,000 to support SAHs.  The budget had been affected by the ongoing rate of inflation.

DFGs were available to residents whose need for home adaptations had been assessed by the Council’s Occupational Therapy Service.  Some DFGs were means tested and all were capped at £36,000. The Council had an option, which it had exercised, to offer fast track DFGs where the applicant was on a statutory benefit and the cost of works was below £5,000. This had been beneficial to clients to help reduce DFG turnaround, thereby, positively, impacting upon the statutory PI. 

Extremely positive feedback had been received about adaptations financed by DFG’s with high customer satisfaction scores of 95% regularly being achieved.

SAHs were intended for smaller works such as handrails, half steps and minor alterations often costing less than £500, but would make a dwelling much safer for disabled residents. 

            Both DFGs and SAHs played a key role in facilitating hospital discharge and in preventing the need for admission as homes would be safer.

            In 2014/15 the DFG budget was supplemented by one off additional funding of £100,000 from the Welsh Government’s Intermediate Care Fund but that has not been repeated in the current financial year.

            Member Scrutiny:

We were advised that the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Environment, Public Services and Housing had expressed apologies for absence.

Members noted that the lack of funding was an issue and suggested arranging a cost benefit analysis as a matter of urgency.

A Member suggested that with planning in mind, houses should be developed to accommodate the needs of people, such as downstairs shower rooms.  The Chairman suggested discussions between Planning and Social Care and Health should take place.

A Member suggested that the Authority was failing in its statutory responsibility to provide DFGs.  It was questioned if there was a charge back system against the properties benefitting from DFGs.  A suggestion was made that the Authority looked at prudential borrowing and allocated those funds to DFGs with the hope of recovering in the future when the person moves on.

We were informed that statutory rules stated that there was no claw-back system for grants for children.  With adults, under £5,000 there was no claw-back, over £5,000 could be clawed-back over a period of 5 years.  Every grant would be registered with Land Charges in order to be reclaimed.

We heard that the £2.7 million had been the original SEG fund from Welsh Government, reduced to the £600,000 budget decided by Monmouthshire County Council.  The Chairman questioned if a forum was in place where the financial issues could be discussed.  The Finance Manager explained the Capital Programme would be put to Council for agreement, where alternative ways of financing the scheme could be discussed. Members agreed for the matter to be highlighted to the Head of Finance (ACTION-TS). 

The Integrated Services Manager added that officers were working with the Health Board and the Neighbourhood Care Network, looking towards a more pooled and integrated service.  It was recommended the discussion be added to the agenda when the Health Board attends an Adults Select Committee later in the year.

The Cabinet Member suggested that funding be accessed through the Revenue Budget rather than the Capital Programme.

Recommendations:

The report recommended that the Committee note the contents of the report and the implications for the processing times for both DFG and SAH grants.