Example
C asked for an independent review of the council’s decision on their community care grant application. They applied for the grant as they had secured a permanent tenancy following a period in homeless accommodation after fleeing domestic abuse. C had three children, was pregnant with their fourth child, on a low income, and could not afford the items.
At the initial decision-making stage, the council assessed that C was eligible for a grant and met the qualifying criteria. However, as the council were on high most compelling rating, they assessed that the items did not meet the high most compelling priority level for an award. C’s advisor provided further information as part of their first-tier review request, but the council did not change their decision as they assessed C had not met the necessary priority rating for an award.
We reviewed the council's file and corresponded with C. C provided a letter from their child's paediatrician which confirmed that their child has autism. It also highlighted the pressures they were facing due to sensory issues and the lack of flooring.
We were satisfied that
- without a living room carpet, there was an immediate risk to the family’s ability to sustain the tenancy. This was linked to the distress caused by the sensory impact of the current flooring, and its slippiness, which had caused falls, and
- without the award of a washing machine, there would be significant and immediate adverse consequences to the wellbeing of the family.
We partially changed the council’s decision on the basis that they had incorrectly interpreted the available information when making their priority assessment.