Your feedback is important to us!

We are gathering information on how best to survey our users about our service. Please take a moment to share your thoughts: Feedback survey

Case study

  • Date:
    May 2017
  • Category:
    Risk of care qualifying criterion


Ms C made an application for a community care grant to the council for a new fridge freezer. She explained that she had completed a mutual exchange and had not taken her white goods with her as her new property had these items and her old fridge freezer would have not fitted at her new tenancy. Ms C explained that she suffered from mental and physical health issues.

The council considered that Ms C met the eligibility criteria to be awarded a grant but did not meet any of the qualifying conditions. The council also noted that Ms C had received a fridge freezer from the fund in August 2016 and this was what she had left in her old flat. They refused Ms C application at both original and first tier stage.

Ms C contacted her local Citizens Advice Bureau and her representative asked us for an independent review of the council’s decision. We considered the particular facts and circumstances of the application. This included information provided by Ms C and details of the decision making process provided by the council. Ms C's representative explained that Ms C had completed a mutual exchange as her previous property looked into a cemetery and this impacted on her mental health. Ms C also suffers from a progressive condition that causes muscle weakness and she struggles to cope on her own. She receives care from her eldest son four days a week and he assists doing her shopping, preparing meals and day-to-day tasks. We assessed that without a working fridge freezer Ms C was at risk of entering a care facility or hospital on the days where the care arrangement is not in place. We assessed that she met the qualifying criteria of being at risk of care (s8.8-8.12 of the SWF guidance). We considered a fridge freezer was a high priority item and therefore changed the council’s decision on the basis that the available information had been interpreted incorrectly.

Updated: July 17, 2019