Example
Mr C applied for a crisis grant for food and living expenses. He was claiming Universal Credit (UC), but had been sanctioned. He had received reduced UC the month prior to his application, and most recently a hardship payment. The applicant had used the hardship payment to repay loans accrued during the previous month, stating that having moved to a new area, he could not risk alienating the people he borrowed money from, who were also on a low income.
The council’s initial decision was to refuse an award on the basis that the applicant had knowingly chosen to repay debts and thereby created a crisis. They assessed that this did not constitute an emergency. The first tier review decision upheld the original on the same basis.
Mr C applied to SPSO for an independent review of the council’s decision. We considered the facts of the case and noted that the applicant had a history of homelessness and mental ill health. We considered that his crisis stemmed from his sanction, and from his response to having accrued debts. He had expressed his fears that he would lose the only support he had if he had not repaid the money, and that he often does not have the ability to think of the long term. We noted that the guidance (s7.26) is clear that fault, or whether the applicant can be said to have caused the situation, is not a consideration when assessing if they are in an emergency. We therefore assessed that the applicant met the qualifying and priority conditions for a crisis grant award. Although we disagreed with the overall decision, we recorded a non-material finding of positive feedback relating to the council’s decision letters.