Select committee: Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
Seventh Report - Disabled people in the housing sector
HC 63
Published 24 May 2024
Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee Disabled people in the housing sector Report on parliament.uk ↗
At a glance11 recommendations and 7 conclusions · Government response published 6 March 2025 (deadline 24 July 2024)
The government's response
Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.
The government "notes the conclusion" of the inquiry, says disabled people "should not face barriers" to suitable housing, and responds to the recommendations with some commitments, some declined actions and several matters left for later announcement.
- On a mandatory M4(2) accessibility standard, the government "intends to set out its policies on the accessibility of new homes in the near future" and will give details of the necessary technical consultation then.
- On registers of accessible housing, the government "does not believe that mandating accessible housing registers is an appropriate action", but will "explore if further guidance, or clarification of existing guidance, is needed".
- On data on M4(2) and M4(3) homes, the government does not intend to require the new collection, saying it wants to reduce burdensome reporting requirements on local authorities.
- On the Disabled Facilities Grant, it is reviewing the £30,000 upper limit, expects the review "to conclude later in 2025", and "proposes to consult on a new formula during 2025" for allocating funding.
What the committee recommended 18
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
Sources
- Seventh Report - Disabled people in the housing sector ↗The committee's report, HC 63, parliament.uk
- 2nd Special Report - Disabled People in the Housing Sector: Government Response ↗The government's response, 6 March 2025, parliament.uk
Recommendations and conclusions 18
-
1
Prioritise disability inclusion and address housing barriers faced by disabled people Conclusion (the committee's words)Disabled people are not a homogeneous group with a single set of housing needs. Rather, Government policy must seek to address the many barriers which disabled individuals face, which vary widely. Too often too many disabled people are failed by current housing policy. We have been particularly pained to hear of the impact on disabled people’s dignity, health and wellbeing of living in unsuitable accommodation. It is intolerable that many disabled people are living in unsuitable accommodation for years without hope. It is essential that the Government, local authorities, and the housing sector work together to prioritise disability inclusion and address the barriers that disabled people are currently facing.
-
2
Take action based on heard concerns regarding disabled people’s housing needs Recommendation (the committee's words)We have found little evidence that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is fully recognising the housing needs of disabled people, let alone treating disabled people’s needs as a priority in housing policy. In particular, it is deeply concerning that the Government’s new Disability Action Plan fails to directly address housing at all, despite clear evidence of the knock-on effect of housing on all aspects of disabled people’s lives. Moreover, the only substantive reassurance that the Minister for Housing and Homelessness was able to provide us with was that she had “heard from lots of people on the ground” in her capacity as the Ministerial Disability Champion. We recommend that the Government should take action based on the concerns that the Minister has heard.
-
3
Little progress made implementing mandatory M4(2) accessibility standard for new build homes. Conclusion (the committee's words)We welcome the Government’s announcement that it intends to make the M4(2) accessibility standard mandatory for all new build homes. This amendment to building regulations is an important policy change which will greatly increase the availability of accessible homes for disabled people. However, we are deeply concerned that the Department has made little progress towards implementing this policy in practice.
-
4
Delayed M4(2) technical consultation causes ongoing uncertainty for disabled people and stakeholders. Conclusion (the committee's words)Moreover, it is unclear why the Department did not seek to launch the further ‘technical consultation’ soon after its July 2022 announcement of its M4(2) policy change. The delay to implementation continues to afflict the daily lives of thousands of disabled people who are searching for accessible new build homes, while stakeholders from across the sector remain “left in the dark”, with little clarity as to the timeline for implementing the M4(2) policy change.
-
5
BSR's excessively long M4(2) consultation timeline delays implementation until spring 2025 at earliest. Conclusion (the committee's words)The Building Safety Regulator’s (BSR) timeline to run a full technical consultation process for six months, starting on an undecided date between May and July 2024, would make it unlikely that the M4(2) baseline policy could be implemented until spring 2025, at the earliest. This is an excessively long timeline considering the sector’s demand for certainty and the evidence that there is likely to be widespread consensus among responses.
-
6
Expedite M4(2) technical consultation process by BSR and Department, publishing responses quickly. Recommendation (the committee's words)It is imperative that the Government’s M4(2) policy commitment is now implemented as soon as possible. If this is not done, thousands of disabled people will continue to be left with their housing needs unmet. Accordingly, we recommend that: • The BSR should launch the technical consultation immediately with an expedited timeline that is made public; • The BSR and the Department should allocate additional resources to ensure that the consultation response is published within a maximum of six weeks of the consultation closing date, rather than the planned 12 weeks; and • The BSR should complete the full technical consultation process within four months, rather than the six months currently planned.
-
7
Mandate local authorities through NPPF to assess and plan for M4(3) wheelchair user homes. Recommendation (the committee's words)We support the Minister for Housing and Homelessness’s call for local authorities to assess their local need for M4(3) wheelchair user standard homes. However, we do not believe that the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) goes far enough to match this ambition. At the next NPPF review, the Government must include an explicit requirement for local authorities to assess the local need for homes at M4(3) wheelchair user standard. The NPPF should also encourage local authorities to include a required minimum percentage of M4(3) standard homes in their local plan, with the precise figure based on their local need assessment. If the Government does not make these changes at the next NPPF review, the Department must set out in writing to us, upon publication of the revised NPPF, how it plans to increase the supply of new homes built to the M4(3) standard to meet the needs of wheelchair users.
-
8
Require local authorities to keep and publish accessibility registers for all social housing stock. Recommendation (the committee's words)We are concerned that most local authorities do not keep a register of the accessibility of their own housing stock, despite some disabled people living in temporary accommodation for years while waiting for accessible social housing. The Government must require all local authorities to keep a register of accessibility of homes in their own housing stock and require local authorities to keep a detailed record of all accessible social housing within their local authority area. Local authorities should be encouraged to publish this information so that disabled people can access this information in appropriate accessible formats.
-
9
Require landlords to include property accessibility information in the Private Rented Sector database. Conclusion (the committee's words)The proposed new Property Portal presents a compelling opportunity to improve information about the accessibility of properties in the private rented sector. This would provide a clear benefit to disabled people. Once the Renters (Reform) Bill comes into force, the Secretary of State must use its provisions to require landlords to include information about the accessibility of their property/properties in their entries in the private rented sector database. This must include any specific accessibility features or adaptations that are already installed, in order to better support the housing needs of disabled people in the private rented sector.
-
10
Require local authorities to report and publish M4(2) and M4(3) new build data annually. Conclusion (the committee's words)We are surprised that the Department does not hold any data on the number of new builds completed to the M4(2) and M4(3) standards in England, especially given that local authorities are already required to provide data on the supply of new homes to central Government annually. The Department must require local authorities to report on the supply of new homes at [a] M4(2) standard and [b] M4(3) standard Disabled people in the housing sector 31 specifically in their annual data submission to the Department. The Department must publish this data annually as part of the ‘Housing supply: net additional dwellings’ statistical release.
-
11
Provide new burdens funding to local authorities for additional accessibility requirements and duties. Recommendation (the committee's words)The Government should provide funding, in line with the new burdens doctrine, to local authorities to ensure that they can carry out these additional requirements and duties to the best of their ability.
-
12
Set out full response and implementation timeline for the 2018 DFG External Review. Conclusion (the committee's words)The Government-commissioned External Review of the Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in 2018 made several appropriate and valuable recommendations on DFG funding, eligibility, and the delivery process, based on comprehensive evidence. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Government has not published a response to the Review and has not acted upon its main findings, despite prolonged calls for it to do so. The Government, in response to this Report, must therefore set out: • its response to each of the External Review’s recommendations in full; • what action it has already taken to address each recommendation in the Review since it was published in 2018; and • a timeline for the future implementation of each of the DFG reforms in line with those External Review recommendations which the Government accepts.
-
13
Review the £30,000 DFG upper limit, considering regional construction costs, and set new regional limits. Recommendation (the committee's words)The £30,000 upper limit on individual DFG applications is sufficient to cover the cost of most DFG applications. However, the fact that the upper limit has not changed since 2008, despite recent rising construction costs, means the DFG does not meet the needs of some applicants whose adaptations cost more than £30,000. Consequently, a small number of disabled people who require more complex adaptations may struggle to afford to self-fund the home adaptations they need. The Government should immediately review the £30,000 upper limit on individual DFGs, with consideration for regional variation in construction costs, and set new regional upper limits. Going forward, the new upper limits must also take account of inflation and construction costs.
-
14
Reform the DFG means test to introduce gradual tapering of personal contributions for working disabled people. Recommendation (the committee's words)Whilst we recognise the need for the DFG means test to be a well-evidenced process, the current DFG means test is unnecessarily complex and leads many applicants to drop out of the DFG process entirely. We are also concerned that the means test’s passporting provisions can result in unfair ‘cliff-edges’ for applicants when they move into work. The Government should reform the means test to ensure it does not disproportionately penalise working disabled people, by introducing more gradual tapering of personal contributions for disabled people when they move into work.
-
15
Simplify the DFG means test by integrating assessment into a reformed social care means test. Recommendation (the committee's words)The Government must also simplify the means test. The Government should consider including assessment for the DFG as part of a reformed social care means test, as recommended by the External Review in 2018.
-
16
Establish a new DFG distribution formula based on local need, population, income, and regional building costs. Recommendation (the committee's words)We welcome the Government’s decision to increase overall DFG funding allocations to local authorities in 2023/24 and 2024/25. However, the current DFG distribution formula is unfair and does not distribute funds according to local need. Oxford City Council sets a good example for how local authorities across England should develop local policies to offer small discretionary grants to support the wider needs of disabled people. The Government must establish a new distribution formula which is clearly based on local need and therefore fairer. In particular, the new formula must distribute funding with consideration for the current and projected number of disabled people; average income; and regional building costs in each local authority area.
-
17
Expand Foundations' remit to improve DFG guidance, tools, and applicant support, including neurodivergent needs. Recommendation (the committee's words)The current provision of local authority support for disabled people seeking to adapt their homes is inconsistent across England. This can result in additional barriers for disabled people as they navigate the DFG process. The Government should expand Foundations’ remit to improve its DFG guidance and self-assessment tools for disabled people, to improve public awareness of the DFG and to support applicants and their advocates as they navigate the process. These updated resources should be developed to account for the specific needs of neurodivergent people.
-
18
Require the Landlord Ombudsman to consider complaints regarding landlord refusal of accessibility adaptations. Recommendation (the committee's words)It is unacceptable that any landlords should refuse disabled tenants permission for reasonable accessibility adaptations, especially where these adaptations have been approved as part of a DFG application. The Government must continue its work with landlord associations and housing associations across England to issue DFG guidance to landlords, to reduce instances of refusal of accessibility adaptations. Once the Renters (Reform) Bill comes into force, the new Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman must consider all complaints involving a landlord’s refusal to grant permission for accessibility adaptations, and must ensure that this service is properly communicated to disabled people. This would empower disabled people with greater access to redress without the need to go to court, thereby reducing the pressure on the justice system and the costs to the residents.