Example
Ms C applied to the SWF for a crisis grant for food and essentials. The applicant had recently fled due to domestic violence and was living in temporary accommodation. She had explained that she had spent her fortnightly ESA on drugs.
The council’s original decision excluded the application on the basis of her having previously made a number of applications due to gambling issues. The applicant’s first tier review request included an objection that she had not applied for this reason previously. The council’s first tier review decision excluded the application on the basis that the applicant’s circumstances did not meet the necessary high priority level for an award.
Having considered the facts of the case and the SWF guidance we disagreed with the council’s decision not to award. The applicant had received two previous crisis grant awards, and made another unsuccessful application; none had been due to spending on drugs. We considered that an assessment of fault (which is a complicated issue in cases such as this) is not part of the decision making process until an applicant has received three awards in a 12 month period. We considered that the applicant was not excluded due to application history, and that she met the necessary qualifying conditions due to having no available money for living expenses and facing a circumstance of pressing need (s7.26 of the guidance). We instructed the council to make an award for the number of days until her next income. We recorded a material finding of guidance not followed correctly, as well as a finding relating to the council’s written communication. Lastly we provided informal feedback reminding decision makers to take steps to avoid any bias when assessing such applications.