Example
Mr C applied to the council for a crisis grant. He applied for living expenses as he stated that his door had been damaged by someone who had then stolen £200.00 of his benefit payment which was in his wallet.
The council noted that Mr C had applied previously for lost money and had been advised not to withdraw all of his benefit in one go. At initial decision, they considered that this was now an ongoing issue. At first tier, the decision maker made some further enquiries including speaking to the police who stated that there were inconsistencies in Mr C's version of events, and the council repair team who confirmed that an emergency repair had been done to Mr C's door but this was 11 days previous to when Mr C stated that his door was kicked in. Mr C had stated that he could not return to the property. They refused the application as they were unable to confirm Mr C's version of events.
Mr C applied to the SPSO for an independent review of the council's decision. We took into account all the relevant facts and circumstances including that Mr C suffers from mental ill health. He stated that he had sought to terminate his tenancy with the council because the current incident was the second time his house had been attacked. While we agreed that the council had made a fair and reasonable decision on the enquiries and information available at first tier, we contacted the council's housing department who were able to confirm that the applicant had come to them around housing options, homelessness and terminating his tenancy. The information that he provided to the council housing team matched with the version of events he had given us and confirmed that he no longer wished to stay in his tenancy as the result of the two incidents, which gave weight and credibility that on balance (s4.20 of SWF Guidance), what Mr C had advised as the reason for his crisis was plausible. As a result, on the basis of this new information, we upheld his request for review and instructed the council to make an award.