Example
Mr C applied to the council for a crisis grant. He applied for living expenses as he stated that he had lost his coat on a bus, containing his wallet which had the majority of his benefit payment in it.
The council noted that Mr C had received a crisis grant for lost money a year ago and noted that there were inconsistencies in his version of events. As a result, they stated that it would not be conceivable that he would have lost money again in this time period and refused his application because on balance, they did not think that what he stated had happened had occurred.
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 he was prescribed medications that make him drowsy and that he suffers from mental ill health. We considered that that these factors may make him more susceptible to losing his money. We also spoke to Mr C about the inconsistencies highlighted by the council and we were satisfied that his version of events was plausible (s4.20 of SWF Guidance) and assessed that he met the qualifying criteria. We assessed that his need for living expenses met the priority level in place at the council and upheld his request for a review on the basis that the available information had been incorrectly interpreted.