Example
C applied for a crisis grant for money for food, utilities and other living expenses because they had spent money on a washing machine.
The council initially declined the application on the basis that C had already received three awards in the last 12-month period which is one more than the usual maximum allowed. They did not identify any exceptional circumstances that would allow for an additional award to be made. At first-tier review the decision maker requested bank statements. The council then changed the rationale for the decision and declined the application on the basis that C appeared to have funds at the time they applied.
We reviewed the council’s file and spoke with C. We noted that C had not applied to the fund previously for spending their income on household goods. However, we considered that there was some responsibility on their part for budgeting their income. As the guidance specifies that there must be no fault on the applicant’s part for an additional award to be made, we did not change the council’s decision.
Feedback
- The council did not follow the guidance correctly when requesting additional evidence and did not clearly explain why they needed this. They also did not clearly detail what stage in the decision making process they were applying this to.