Example
C asked us to review the Council’s decision on their community care grant application. C applied for a grant to help them move into a new tenancy following a period of homelessness. C explained that they are neurodivergent and suffer from sensory issues.
The council awarded white goods and carpet for the living room and occupied bedrooms. C requested a first-tier review and asked for the appeal to be taken by phone. The Council arranged a call back at a date and time agreed with C. On that phone call, C asked for the Council’s decision about the kitchen, bathroom and hallway flooring to be reviewed. C explained that the carpet offered for the living room and bedrooms was unsuitable due to their sensory issues.
The Council upheld their original decision and did not change their fulfilment method for the carpets.
We reviewed the Council's file and spoke with C. We noted the evidence that C had provided regarding their sensory issues but did not consider it supported the award of alternative carpeting. Therefore, we did not change the Council's decision.
We fed back to the council about their service noting they made reasonable adjustments, and there was evidence of a sensitive and considered approach within their case notes. This was assessed as being in keeping with the principles of fairness, dignity and respect within the guidance.
C subsequently requested a reconsideration of our decision. The new decision maker changed the original decision as they determined that the carpets awarded by the council did not meet C’s need. The applicant told the Council that the carpets they provide would cause sensory overload which could trigger extreme anxiety. They also provided evidence from their GP that they have autism, ADHD and PTSD.
We concluded that this evidence was sufficient to indicate that there would be a significantly adverse impact on C’s wellbeing if the Council's regular carpets were awarded; and that it was appropriate to make a cash award. We instructed the council to award C £785.