| High most compelling priority rating |
A had applied for a grant as they had been given a permanent tenancy after a period of homelessness. |
July 2024 |
Not upheld |
| Exceptional circumstances for crisis grants |
C had applied for a crisis grant for money for food and utilities after their money was stolen when they had a seizure. |
July 2024 |
Upheld |
| Insufficient enquiries made |
C applied for a white goods, carpets and removal costs for their new tenancy. |
July 2024 |
Upheld |
| Crisis grant calculations |
C requested SPSO review the council's decision on their crisis grant application |
June 2024 |
Not upheld |
| Crisis grant calculations |
C requested we review the council's decision on their crisis grant application. |
June 2024 |
Upheld |
| Exceptional circumstances for crisis grants |
C requested we review the council's decision on their crisis grant application. |
June 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |