Does anybody have any experience of obtaining a disability reduction on Council Tax when a home is adapted for use by profoundly deaf people e.g.differing sorts of flashing lights to show when door bell rings or smoke alarm goes off, textphones, etc

I have applied for a couple who are both profoundy deaf but have been refused as "the property has not undergone physical alteration or a room which has undergone a change of usage" As far as I'm aware that is not the criteria. Any mileage in the DDA?

I think you are right, the criteria are laid down in Reg 3 the Council Tax (Reductions for Disability) Regualtions 1992, the terms of which are:

Eligible persons
3.—(1) Subject to paragraph (4), a person is an eligible person for the purposes of these Regulations if-
(a) he is a liable person as regards a dwelling which is the sole or main residence of at least one qualifying individual and in which there is provided-
(i) a room which is not a bathroom, a kitchen or a lavatory and which is predominantly used (whether for providing therapy or otherwise) by and is required for meeting the needs of any qualifying individual resident in the dwelling; or
(ii) a bathroom or kitchen which is not the only bathroom or kitchen within the dwelling and which is required for meeting the needs of any qualifying individual resident in the dwelling; or
(iii) sufficient floor space to permit the use of a wheelchair required for meeting the needs of any qualifying individual resident in the dwelling; and
(b) as regards the financial year in question, an application is made in writing by him or on his behalf to that authority.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), and subject to paragraph (3), references to anything being required for meeting the needs of a qualifying individual are references to its being essential or of major importance to his well-being by reason of the nature and extent of his disability.

Note that the Regulation is headed "eligible persons" not "eligible dwellings". There is nothing in the regulations whihc specifically refers to any physical adaptations or changes of usage.

Surely a living room containing the specialised equipment you refer to which is predominately used by the couple must fit the crteria.

I would appeal to the VCT if the Council wont budge

I would have thought this would be a non-starter. Amongst the criteria for a disability reduction is that the dwelling must have at least one of the following features:

· a room (but not a bathroom, kitchen or lavatory) which is predominantly used (whether for providing therapy or otherwise) by the disabled person; or

· an additional bathroom or kitchen which is necessary for meeting the needs of the disabled person; or

· sufficient floor space to permit the use of a wheelchair.

The sort of equipment you are talking about clearly doesn't fit into the above.

I would have thought that provided the adaptations to, or any equipment provided in any particular room (excluding of course the kitchen and bathroom) is fixed and not portable, then these individuals will qualify for a reduction

Stainsby beat me to it - but I still disagree! If Stainsby's analysis is correct, then any property occupied by a disabled person which has some special feature would be eligible - as any property occupied by a disabled will have a room which is "predominantly used by them".

In general, I have always thought that features such as internal lifts, adapted bathrooms or kitchens, ramps and hoists etc. cannot be taken into account. The guidance I have circulated to staff has included:

Most commonly, the reduction will apply where:

· one partner in a couple requires their own bedroom because of their disability - this would count as it is a room “predominantly used” by them even though it may not have been adapted in any way

· a bedroom has been provided at ground floor level in a house (thereby sacrificing a living room) for a disabled person

· a second kitchen or, more commonly, bathroom has been provided - e.g. a straight run-in bathroom or shower-room for a person in a wheelchair

· one room is used exclusively for storing equipment - e.g. wheelchairs, kidney dialysis equipment, braille equipment etc.

But, say, a living room which has flashing lights is no different than a living room with a hoist - the feature in this case is the hoist, but the criteria relates to the room. Surely the point of the reduction is to compensate people for living in what would be a larger property than they would otherwise need, were it not for their disability.

Thanks to you and "Stainsby" for your input.

I note that you mention braille equipment but a brailler takes up no more room than a textphone and computer (used for communication). I know its not in the legislation but the practice note advises authorities that they should consider whether if the feature were not available the disabled person would find it physically impossible or extremely difficult to live in the dwelling.

Realistically it would be very difficult to remain in the dwelling if the features listed were not in place. Why is that any less essential to the disabled person than being in a different room, (although I accept that it may put the room out of use by another person which is not the case here). However I can't see why equipement for a blind person counts, but not for a deaf person, thats discrimminatory...surely!