| When two crisis grant applications should have been treated as one |
C, a welfare rights officer for the applicant (A), asked for an independent review of the council’s decision on their crisis grant application. |
May 2024 |
Upheld |
| When two crisis grant applications should have been treated as one |
C requested an independent review of the council's decision on their crisis grant application. |
May 2024 |
Upheld |
| High most compelling priority rating |
C, a family member of the applicant (A), asked for an independent review of the council’s decision on their community care grant application. |
April 2024 |
Upheld |
| High most compelling priority rating |
C asked for an independent review of the council's decision on their community care grant application. |
April 2024 |
Upheld |
| High most compelling priority rating |
C, a welfare rights officer for the applicant (A), asked us to review the council’s decision to refuse A’s request for a washing machine made as part of their community care grant application. |
April 2024 |
Not upheld |
| High most compelling priority rating |
C asked for an independent review of the council’s decision on their community care Grant application. |
April 2024 |
Upheld |
| High most compelling priority rating |
C asked us to review the council’s decision on their application for a community care grant. |
April 2024 |
Upheld |
| Meeting the need |
C requested an independent review of the council's decision on their crisis grant application. |
March 2024 |
Upheld |
| Change of circumstances within 28 days |
C asked the SPSO to review the council’s decision to refuse their application for a community care grant. |
March 2024 |
Upheld |
| Dignity and respect |
C applied for a community care grant for clothing, bedding, a waterproof mattress protector, and pillows. |
February 2024 |
Not upheld |