Example
Ms C applied to the council for a community care grant in order to obtain a replacement for her washing machine, which had stopped working. The original decision maker awarded the applicant a washing machine with a 5kg drum. However, the applicant has five children and has explained that a washing machine of this size is not sufficient to meet her needs.
The council’s first tier decision maker’s noted that they did not consider that whether or not the applicant had a large washing machine would have any effect on the their ability to maintain a settled home; and additionally that “if the customer were to make a new application for a larger appliance when in possession of a new 5kg machine it would be unlikely that an award would be made”.
Ms C asked SPSO for an independent review. We disagreed with the council’s decision. Section 4.46 of the SWF Guidance explains how grants should be fulfilled and notes that “factors to be taken into consideration include: the likely wear on the item and the effect on its life, as this may result in repeat applications”. The Guidance goes on to give this example, “for example, if a washing machine is going to have heavy use, a larger capacity washing machine may be required”. We instructed the council to award a large capacity washing machine with a 9kg drum as we assessed that they had incorrectly interpreted the available information. We also provided feedback that the first tier decision is an opportunity to replace the original decision with a new one if deemed appropriate, therefore the existence of the washing machine that had been awarded, should not have been taken into account when considering whether the award was appropriate.