Example
C applied for a crisis grant after losing their bank card, which was then used fraudulently.
Although C had not reached the limit of three awards in 12 months, the Council requested evidence to verify C’s circumstances as C had lost their card four times in the past 12 months. C provided some information but it did not verify the circumstances of their crisis. The Council refused the application as they were not satisfied that they had sufficient reliable information to make a robust decision.
We reviewed the Council's file and spoke with C. C provided new information about how their money was spent and what money had been taken from their bank account. We were satisfied that this confirmed their crisis and changed the Council’s decision.
The Council asked for a reconsideration of our decision. They questioned C’s version of events about fraudulent transactions and noted C applied to the fund frequently. A new SPSO decision-maker reviewed the case and considered that there was insufficient evidence to verify that C’s crisis happened as they said.
We changed our decision. However, in line with our Statement of Practice, we did not reduce or take back the award from C. The correct decision was recorded in our statistics. We advised the Council that SPSO would apply learning from this review, in particular around gathering and properly weighing evidence in our decisions.
Recommendations
- Award £408.00 to applicant.
Feedback for the Council
- The first-tier decision was issued outwith the target processing time.
- The first-tier decision letter did not contain sufficient information to enable the applicant to understand the refusal reason.
We asked the organisation to provide us with confirmation that the award was made within one week.