Example
C applied for household goods, including a cooker and bedding, after moving into an unfurnished council tenancy following a period of homelessness.
At the initial decision stage, the council awarded some of the requested items. However, they substituted the cooker with an air fryer and microwave, as they considered these would adequately meet the cooking needs of a household of this size.
C requested a first-tier review, as they disagreed with the decision to substitute the cooker and with the beds that had been awarded. Following the review, the council amended the size of the beds but did not change the bedding provided. The council also awarded the remaining items that had been refused at the initial decision stage. The decision regarding the cooking appliances remained unchanged.
We reviewed the council's records and spoke with C. We found that the council should have considered the cooker as requested and should not have substituted this item without checking whether the substituted items would meet the families’ needs. We assessed that a cooker met the high priority criteria and should have been awarded. We also found that, following clarification provided during our review, the bedding awarded should have been amended to the correct size to match the beds provided to C.
Recommendations
- We instructed the council to award a cooker and double bedding for two beds.
Feedback for the council
- The council did not follow the guidance when they assessed the cooker.
- There was new information relating to the bedding which changed how this should have been assessed.
- The council’s decision-making notes did not clarify the decision-making process.
- The council’s decision letters did not fully explain the reason they opted to change the cooker to an air fryer and microwave.
We asked the council to confirm that the additional award was made within five working days.