Case study

  • Date:
    April 2024
  • Category:
    High most compelling priority rating


C asked us to review the council’s decision on their application for a community care grant. They had moved to a permanent tenancy after a period of homelessness, and needed help to furnish their home. 

The council awarded items that met the high most compelling priority level, but did not award carpets and a sofa. C requested a first-tier review of the decision, but the council did not change their original decision. 

We reviewed the council’s case file and spoke with C and their support worker for further information. 

We disagreed with the council’s assessment that a sofa did not the meet high most compelling priority rating. This was because the support worker provided evidence that C was receiving support at home several time a week, and were sitting on the bare floor. We determined that not having a sofa was detrimental to effective support being provided, which in turn, created a risk of the applicant being unable to sustain their tenancy. We changed the council’s decision and awarded C a sofa. 

We did not award carpets as we agreed that they did not meet the priority level. We also provided the council with feedback that their decision letters did not provide sufficient information about their decision, and that they had not contacted C or their support worker to collect further information.

Updated: April 17, 2024