During February we
- responded to 79 enquiries
- made 64 decisions
- 16 community care grants
- 48 crisis grants
- upheld 8 (50%) of community care grants and 14 (29%) of crisis grants
- signposted an additional 61 applicants to other sources of assistance. Of these, 61% were calling us instead of their local council in error. A further 30% told us they were experiencing accessibility barriers when trying to contact their council, such as the lack of a freephone number, difficulties applying online or problems with council phone lines. The remaining callers got in touch too early in the process and were directed back to their local council or other organisations
- received 11 enquiries from council staff seeking advice.
Engagement
We continued our engagement programme this month to promote awareness and accessibility of the review process, meeting with one council’s SWF team and a local Tackling Poverty team. We also delivered bespoke training for another local authority, focusing on key areas of the SWF guidance.
Case studies
Consideration of children's rights
C applied for a community care grant for flooring for their home. They have weekly shared care of their pre‑school children, and the exposed concrete floors posed a risk of injury, potentially affecting their care arrangements.
The council refused the application, assessing that the qualifying criteria for an award were not met. C’s representative then asked the SPSO to review the decision not to award carpets and vinyl.
We reviewed the council’s file and engaged with C’s representative. C was receiving support from a family centre and participating in an intensive mental health programme related to chronic pain and PTSD. There were concerns that shared care could be withdrawn because of the risk to the children if they fell on the concrete floors.
Taking account of ‘Children whose rights under the UNCRC Act may be impacted’ under Annex C of the guidance, we assessed that the qualifying criteria relating to exceptional pressure were met. We changed the council’s decision and awarded carpets for the sitting room and two bedrooms, as these met the high‑priority criteria.
Recommendations
- Award carpets for the two bedrooms and sitting room.
Feedback for the council
- The council did not fully consider the impact on children’s rights under the UNCRC when assessing vulnerability.
You can find more case studies in the searchable case directory on our website.