Example
C asked us to review the Council’s decision on their crisis grant application. C applied for money for food as their income reduced when their discretionary housing payment was stopped. Throughout the application process, C said that they need to communicate in writing as they were neurodiverse and were unable to communicate verbally.
The council made an award for food only. C asked the Council to review their decision as the amount awarded did not meet their needs. The Council made a number of attempts to contact C by phone to verify their identity but were unable to reach them. As alternatives, they suggested that C visit the Council office, or that a home visit could be arranged. C stated that neither of these options were suitable as they would require C to communicate verbally. The Council did not change their original decision and no further payment was made.
We reviewed the Council's file and contacted C by email. C explained that they have dietary requirements related to a food intolerance and so must avoid tinned and processed products. We did not agree with the amount awarded by the Council. We assessed that they had made inadequate enquiries with C to determine an appropriate award sufficient for C’s needs. We instructed the Council to make an additional payment of £63.00.
We also fed back to the Council regarding their communication with C. We determined that repeatedly contacting the applicant by phone and suggesting face-to-face contact did not meet their needs and was not in line with the principles of fairness, dignity and respect that are embedded throughout the guidance.