Office closure

We will be closed on Monday 5 May for the public holiday. You can still request a review via our online form but we will not respond until we reopen.

New Customer Service Standards

We have updated our Customer Service Standards and are looking for feedback from customers. Please fill out our survey here by 12 May 2025: https://forms.office.com/e/ZDpjibqe8r 

Case study

  • Date:
    October 2021
  • Category:
    Self-Isolation Support Grant

Example

C applied for a Self-Isolation Support Grant via the Scottish Welfare Fund administered by their local council. C had been required to self-isolate via the Test and Protect service. C was unable to work from home and therefore experienced a reduction in their income as they were only paid Statutory Sick Pay (SSP).

The council refused the application initially as C did not provide evidence that they had experienced a loss of income. The council also checked HMRC records which confirmed this. C requested a first tier review and provided a pay slip which confirmed that they were paid SSP and, therefore, had experienced a reduction in income. At first tier review the council checked with HMRC who noted that their records had been amended and C had experienced a reduced income. Despite this, the council did not change the decision on the basis that they said that C was employed by a family member and they deemed that the payslip had been changed.

C submitted an independent review request. We requested the council's file and contacted the applicant for further information. C provided a pay slip confirming they only received SSP during their period of self-isolation. We were satisfied that, in line with section 11.25 of the SWF guidance, this was sufficient and that C had experienced a reduction in their income. We deemed there were no inconsistences in what C told us and had no reason not to take this information at face value. We deemed that C met all of the remaining eligibility criteria and so changed the council’s decision. We provided feedback that the council had incorrectly assessed the available information.

Updated: October 18, 2021