Appendix 2
Policy Options regarding Discretionary Financial Assistance
Option 1: Continue with the current policy, funding adaptations in full over
£30,000:Benefits



Benefit to the applicant in that the
council grant funds the full cost of
adaptations (subject to means
test) for disabled adults, and
without means test for disabled
children and young people
The current level of service is
continued
The council is making a
significant contribution to
supporting vulnerable people in
the borough
Risks/issues to consider










The full cost of a DFG with a
discretionary element can be
substantial – over £40,000,
£50,000, £60,000 or more
This option exerts no budgetary
management or control – is simply
demand led and reactive
A relatively small group of
households benefits from
significant sums of grant aid
Requires annual draw down from
future years
Does not resolve or address the
funding problem
Does not recognise the pressure
on mandatory grants expenditure,
or the uncertainty over future
funding allocations to the council
Requires an increasing capital
budget and increasing council tax
payer subsidy – expenditure will
continue to rise in line with
demand and through increases in
adaptation works and cost
Is not consistent with the
approach taken by councils locally
and with “family group” authorities
Does not require people to find
other sources of funding that may
be available - council tax payer
funding is still the first option
Does not explore other housing
options for the applicant – an
expensive adaptation may not
meet the applicant`s long term
needs
Option 2: Stop all discretionary aid:Benefits



The mandatory grant is still
available up to £30,000 which
covers around 97% of
applications for adaptations
Frees up more money for
mandatory grants to support more
people needing lower level
adaptations
Council does not overspend and
takes budgetary control
Risks/issues to consider










Would represent a significant
reduction in the current level of
service available to Basingstoke
and Deane residents without any
mitigation and mechanism to
support applicants with more
expensive adaptations
Could discourage clients from
pursuing necessary adaptations
(if they had to meet the full, or
partial, cost of adaptation above
£30,000), particularly if client`s
income places is too high for full
(mandatory) grant aid
Would not take advantage of the
opportunities for partnership
working or funding
Risk of legal challenge – contrary
to guidance.
Does not make any provision for
exceptional cases, or differing
household circumstances or
degrees of vulnerability or need –
simply a blanket policy
The council would still have to
meet the cost of urgent cases
(eg: terminal illness)
This controls the budget but does
not recognise the need for
service, support and aid for
disabled people, either for
individuals or for the wider
community
Would not adhere to best practice
Would be a missed opportunity to
design a cost effective, supportive
and responsive service for
disabled people
Apart from mandatory DFGs the
council would have no budget to
financially support any private
housing sector renewal work for
individual households in the
borough
Option 3: Cap discretionary grants at a certain level:Benefits






Council does not overspend and
takes budgetary control – cap
need not be overly restrictive
Frees up more money for
mandatory grants to support more
people in need – this could be
achieved even if only a small
restriction to discretionary grants
awarded were to be applied
Potentially frees up more money
for other discretionary grants –
makes the discretionary pot go
further
Basingstoke and Deane`s offer
would still be generous compared
with other councils
The option is less stringent than a
total cessation of discretionary
grants
Makes allowance for adaptations
just over £30,000 or for a
contingency budget for
unexpected adaptation costs as
works progress, and, with a
£10,000 discretionary grant per
applicant, will fund adaptations up
to the value of £40,000
Risks/issues to consider







Would represent a reduction in
the current level of service
available to Basingstoke and
Deane residents
Could discourage clients from
pursuing necessary adaptations
(if they had to meet the full, or
partial, cost of adaptation above
£30,000), particularly if client`s
income places is too high for full
(mandatory) grant aid
There will still be considerable
expenditure on the mandatory
element of the DFG (£30,000)
even if the discretionary element
is limited to £10,000
There is no policy approach to
deal with adaptations in excess
of the cap
Would still have to make
provision for urgent cases
With the increasing cost of
adaptations and rising caseload,
expenditure could increase in
future years
It does not take advantage of
other funding opportunities that
may be available – the council is
still the primary funder of
adaptations of up to £40,000 per
applicant, enhancing stock in
housing association and owner
occupied homes without return
on its investment
Option 4: Offer loans to owner occupiers, refer housing association cases to
the housing association for funding or other options, and maintain
a small discretionary budget to be used at Portfolio Holder
discretion on a case by case basis
Benefits











Frees up budget for mandatory
grants to support more people in
need
Allows clients the adaptations
they need at full cost of the
adaptation
Loan schemes identified can tailor
the loan offer to different
household incomes and
circumstances – flexibility for
applicants
Recycles funds back into the
capital budget in the medium to
longer term making funding more
sustainable for the council
Can achieve greater value for
money for the council
Greater budget certainty and less
risk of drawing down on future
years
Can also be used for applicants to
pay for part of the adaptation
where the means test indicates
they should make a contribution –
currently such applicants must
find the money for their
contribution themselves
More opportunity to widen support
under the Private Sector Housing
Renewal Policy - the council could
extend its discretionary grant offer
to include empty homes loans,
repair and renovation grants
Organisations already exist with
experience of lending to local
authority DFG applicants, and for
renovation and repair work and
with appropriate FSA experience.
These organisations have the
systems and infrastructure to
administer, pay and account for
loans and repayments
Still retains a small budget for
discretionary grants in exceptional
circumstances
All applicants will still be entitled
to receive the first £30,000 of the
Risks/issues to consider






A change in the council`s policy,
approach and service provision
Loans may discourage applicants
proceeding with adaptations
Requires that the applicant have
sufficient equity in the property as
the loan is secured against this
There would still need to be an
annual capital budget for loans
(placed with the lending
organisation) and the small
discretionary budget
Potential need for the council to
“hand-hold” applicants in the
short term
Introduction of the loan scheme publicity of the new policy to
applicants and partners








adaptation from the council – the
mandatory grant element
Discretionary budget is closely
targeted towards those in greatest
need ensuring best value for
money
Encourages and promotes access
to other funding streams (housing
associations, charities, NHS,
HCC)
Discretionary grants are still in
place but as the last resort rather
than reliance on / assumption that
the council is the only funder of
adaptations
More likely to get the best solution
for the applicant in the longer term
as other options have to be
explored
A policy change would encourage
OTs and Housing Associations to
respond positively and
strategically to the funding deficit
and rising demand and work with
the council to find joint solutions to
individual applicants
Ensures more sustainable budget
management while offering a
solution to applicants whose
adaptations are more expensive
and a safety net where there is no
other solution
Reflects usual custom and
practice amongst other local
authorities
Achieves a balance between
budget sustainability and service
provision for all people in need of
adaptations
Options considered but not put forward for consideration
Waiting list:Benefits

The council does not go over
budget nor need to draw down
funds from future years or other
ervice areas
Risks/issues to consider












A statutory 6 month time limit –
any longer and the council could
be operating illegally
This would represent a significant
reduction in level of service for
Basingstoke & Deane residents &
stakeholders
The budget is controlled but the
real issues are not addressed (eg:
ageing population, government
funding)
Backlog at the start of the new
financial could result in budget
fully committed even earlier in
Year 2
May not work as well for councils
where seeing an increase in
applications is expected as the
backlog will also build quickly and
increase
Serves no other purpose than
exerting budgetary control
Does not respond to the issues
driving demand, to increasing
adaptation costs, or the funding
deficit
A “first come first served”
approach (in date order) could be
seen as unfair – applications
made early in the financial year
would receive grant whereas
those later in the year may have
to wait
Could result in builders reluctance
to undertake work
Not generally considered good
practice amongst local authorities,
despite budget pressures
Can prevent proactive exploration
of other solutions
A small discretionary grant budget
may still be needed as a safety
net to cover exceptional
circumstances and for urgent
cases