The UK Government has agreed to review the current £30,000 limit of the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG), which funds vital home adaptations, following a legal challenge by a family left unable to meet their child’s needs.

The case was brought on behalf of a six-year-old disabled child, from Tower Hamlets, London. The family live in a one-bedroom property and require an extension to provide an extra bedroom and additional space for equipment related to the child’s disability. This extension is estimated to cost up to £100,000.

However, the current limit families can receive under the DFG – paid through local authorities – is £30,000. Councils are able top up this amount at their own discretion.

The family, who cannot be named for legal reasons, instructed specialist public law and human rights lawyers at Irwin Mitchell to bring a High Court challenge against the limit, which was set in 2008 and has not increased since.

This is despite a government-commissioned review in 2018 finding the average cost of extensions required by the most severely disabled adults and children were above the £30,000 limit. It recommended that the limit is increased in line with inflation.

Additionally, in December 2021, the government published the ‘People at the Heart of Care: Adult social care reform white paper’, in which it committed to increase the amount that a DFG can pay for an individual adaptation. This commitment was later dropped or de-prioritised by the previous government.

A judicial review challenge was filed in the High Court arguing that the previous government had promised to review the upper limit but then failed to do so. However, the case has now been settled, on the basis that the new government has agreed to begin a review of the upper limit within the next four weeks. This review will take no longer than three months and will consider the impact of the £30,000 limit on disabled people who may require adaptations costing more than this amount.

Lawyers at Irwin Mitchell say the settlement could have significant implications for disabled people who find that the current upper limit of the grant does not cover the potential adaptions and extensions they need to make to their home.

Oliver Carter is the specialist public law and human rights lawyer representing the family.

“The news that the government has accepted the upper limit of the DFG needs to be reviewed is a victory for our client but also for all disabled people in England and Wales who may need adaptations to their homes,” Oliver said.

“The upper limit has remained unchanged for the best part of two decades despite building costs and the cost of materials spiralling. As a previous review has shown, it cannot cover the cost of extensions in many parts of the country, leaving people unable to adapt their homes to meet their needs.

“Our client and their family are just one of any number of people who cannot afford to make the changes necessary as a result of the DFG limit. Costs have risen considerably in the last 16 years and with inflation, what was a struggle to afford in 2008 is considerably harder now.

“Many families rely on these grants to fund essential changes so they can live a normal life that many of us take for granted. We’re pleased the new government has committed to this important review and we look forward to seeing the findings in due course.”

The child has a range of disabilities including autism and global developmental delay. The family’s housing association applied for a DFG in February 2023, but the extension was expected to cost in the region of £100,000. Even with the DFG, the housing association could not make up the shortfall.

Following the government’s agreement to review the DFG upper limit, the family’s local council approved the application for a DFG to cover the full costs of the extension they need.

The recent Autumn Budget 2024 announced an £86 million increase to the DFG, which the government says will support 7,800 more adaptations to homes for those with social care needs to reduce hospitalisations and prolong independence.