Last month we
- responded to 61 enquiries
- made 42 decisions
- 13 community care grants
- 29 crisis grants
- upheld 46% of community care grants and 17% of crisis grants
- signposted an additional 93 applicants to other sources of assistance. 72% of these were calling us instead of their local council in error. 14 applicants noted that they were unable to contact their local council as they as there was no freephone number
- received 9 enquiries were from local councils seeking advice
Support and Intervention Policy
We raised two new issues at level one of our Support and Intervention Policy. These were linked to recurring written communications issues and delays with decision making. Separately, we escalated an issue concerning timescales not being met to level two of the policy.
Engagement
We welcomed colleagues from five councils into the office for ‘train the trainer’ training. The session covered the decision making process, evidence gathering, the recording of the decision and written communication with applicants. We also delivered four virtual ‘priority assessment’ workshops to decision makers across Scotland.
Case studies
Exceptional pressure
C asked for an independent review of the council’s decision. They had applied for a community care grant for a number of household items. In their application, they explained that they had broken their leg in two places, and that this injury required them to undergo several operations and have pins and plates fitted. C advised that they were reliant on family members for support with daily tasks, and using aids and adaptations for mobility.
The council assessed that the application did not meet any of the qualifying conditions. They stated that C was not receiving health benefits, and would be aware that they would need to replace household goods over time. C requested a first tier review of the decision but the council did not change their original decision. They reiterated that C did not meet the qualifying conditions for a grant. We reviewed the council’s case file and contacted C for further information. C advised that their hall and kitchen flooring had been damaged due to using a chair with wheels to move around the property. They provided photos to verify the condition of the flooring. They advised that they had requested a fridge freezer, sofa and single mattress as these items were in poor condition.
Based on the information available, we assessed that C met the qualifying criteria regarding facing exceptional pressure. We assessed that the council had incorrectly interpreted the available information available to them and instructed them to award the items that met the necessary priority level. We provided feedback to the council that both decisions were issued outwith timescales, and that the decision letters were not personalised.
You can find more case studies in the searchable directory on our website.